Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LIDDON - The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ-1869 PDF
LIDDON - The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ-1869 PDF
LIDDON - The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ-1869 PDF
https://books.google.com
1
B-AMPTON LECTUEES
s si I
RIVINGTONS
•■
Eonlfon Wateeloo Places
©rforti *. High Stkbst
Cam6rftJcj« - ■ Tbkitt Shush
EIGHT LECTURES
FOURTH EDITION
biblioth£que
" Les Fontaines "
S J
RIVINGTONS
60 - CHANTILLY
1869
' Wenn Christus nicht wahrer Gott ist ; die mahometanische
Religion eine unstreitige Verbesserung der christlichen war, und
Mahomet selbst ein ungleich grossrer und wiirdigerer Mann
gewesen ist als Christus.'
Lessing, Sammtl. Schriften, Bd. g, p. 291.
OF THE LATE
Christ Chdkch,
Ascension Bay, 1867.
a S. Aug. de Trin. i. 5.
PEEFACE
Christ Church,
Whitsuntide, 1868.
ANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES.
LECTURE I.
LECTUEE II.
Gal. iii. 8.
PAGE
Principle of the Organic Unity of Scripture.—Its import
ance in the argument ....... 44
I. Foreshadowings—
a. Indications in the Old Testament of a Plurality
of Persons within the One Divine Essence . 48
0. The Theophanies ; their import . . . 51
y. The Divine 'Wisdom'
1. in the Hebrew Canon . . . .59
2. in the later Greek Sapiential Books . 61
3. In Philo Judseus . . . . .62
Contrast between Philo and the New Testament . 68
Probable Providential purpose of Philo's speculations . 70
II. Predictions and Announcements—
Hope in a future, a moral necessity for men and nations 72
Secured to Israel in the doctrine of an expected
Messiah . . . . . . . . 75
Four stages observable in the Messianic doctrine—
a. From the Protevangelium to the death of Moses 7 8
0. Age of David and Solomon . . . -79
y. From Isaiah to Malachi . . . .83
8. After Malachi 90
Contrast between the original doctrine and the se
cularized form of it . . . . -91
Christ was rejected for appealing from the debased
to the original doctrine ..... 93
Conclusion : The foregoing argument illustrated—
1. from the emphatic Monotheism of the Old
Testament . . . . . -93
2. from its full description of Christ's Manhood . 94
Christ's appeal to the Old Testament . . .96
Analysis of the Lectures. xxiii
LECTURE III.
LECTURE IV.
OUB lord's divinity as witnessed by his consciousness.
St. John x. 33.
The 'Christ of history' none other than the 'Christ of
dogma' r52
xxiv Analysis of the Lectures.
LECTURE V.
THE DOCTBINE OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY IN THE WHITINGS OP
ST. JOHN.
I St. John i. 1-3.
St. John's Gospel ' the battle-field ' of the New Testament 208
I. Ancient and modern objections to its claims . .208
Witness of the second century . . . .210
Its distinctive internal features may be explained
generally by its threefold purpose—
1. Supplementary 219
2. Polemical . . . . . . .220
3. Dogmatic 222
Analysis of the Lectures. xxv
LECTURE VI.
Gal. ii. 9.
PAGE
St. John's Christology not an intellectual idiosyncrasy . 277
The Apostles present One Doctrine under various forms . 278
I. St. James's Epistle—
1. presupposes the Christology of St. Paul . 282
2. implies a high Christology by incidental ex
pressions 287
II. St. Peter—
1. Iead3 his hearers up to understand Christ's
true dignity, in his Missionary Sermons . 291
2. exhibits Christ's Godhead more fully, in his
Epistles 294
III. St. Jude's Epistle implies that Christ is God . 301
IV. St. Paul—
1. form of his Christology compared with that
of St. John 302
prominent place given by him to the truths
a. of our Lord's true Mediating Manhood 303
/3. of the Unity of the Divine Essence . 307
2. Passages from St. Paul asserting the Divinity
of Christ in terms ..... 310
3. A Divine Christ implied in the general teaching
of St. Paul's Missionary Sermons . . 324
of St. Paul's Epistles . . . .328
4. And in some leading features of that teach
ing, as in
a. his doctrine of Faith . . -339
(3. his account of Regeneration . . 344
y. his attitude towards the Judaizers . 348
V. Contrasts between the Apostles do but enhance the
force of their common faith in a Divine Christ . 350
Analysis of the Lectures. xxvii
LECTURE VII.
THE HOMOOUSION.
Tit. i. 9.
PAGE
Vitality of doctrines, how tested 353
Doctrine of Christ's Divinity strengthened by opposition . 357
Objections urged in modern times against the Homoousion 358
Eeal justification of the Homoousion—
I. The ante-Nicene Church adored Christ . . . 359
Adoration of Jesus Christ
1. during His earthly Life . . . 364
2. by the Church of the Apostles after His
Ascension 367
Characteristics of the Adoration of Christ in the
Apostolic Age—
a. It was not combined with any worship
of creatures 376
j3. It was really the worship due to God . 378
y. It was nevertheless addressed to Christ's
Manhood, as being united to His Deity 379
2, by the post-Apostolic Church,
in sub-Apostolic Age . . . .379
in later part of Second Century . .381
in Third Century ..... 383
expressed in hymns and doxologies . . 385
and signally at Holy Communion . -389
assailed by Pagan sarcasms . . -391
embodied in last words of martyrs . . 398
inconsistently retained by Arians . .403
and even by early Socinians . . 404
II. The ante-Nicene Church spoke of Christ as Divine 405
Value of testimony of martyrs . . . .406
Similar testimony of theologians . . .411
Their language not mere ' rhetoric * . . . 417
Objection from doubtful statements of some ante-
Nicenes 418
xxviii Analysis of the Lectures.
PAGE
Answer : a. They had not grasped all the intellectual
bearings of the faith. . . .419
j3. They were anxious to put strongly for
ward the Unity of God . . .422
y. The Church's real mind not doubtful . 424
III. The Homoousion
a. not a development in the sense of an enlarge
ment of the faith ..... 426
j3. necessary 1. in the Arian struggle . . -434
2. in our own times . . . 436
LECTURE VIII.
SOME CONSEQUENCES OF THE DOCTRINE OF OUR LORD'S DIVINITY.
Rom. viii. 32.
Theology must be, within limits, ' inferential ' . . .441
What the doctrine of Christ's Divinity involves . .442
I. Conservative force of the doctrine—
1. It protects the Idea of God in human thought, 444
a. which Deism cannot guard . . .444
/9. and which Pantheism destroys . .448
2. It secures the true dignity of Man . . .451
II. Illuminative force of the doctrine—
a. It implies Christ's Infallibility as a Teacher . 455
Objections from certain texts . . . 456
1. St. Luke ii. 52 considered . . 456
2. St. Mark xiii. 32 considered . . 458
A single limitation of knowledge in Christ's
Human Soul apparently indicated . . 459
admitted by great Fathers . . . 460
does not involve .Agnoetism . . .462
nor Nestorianism . . . 463
is consistent with the practical immensity
of Christ's human knowledge . . 464
is distinct from, and does not imply fal
libility, still less actual error . .467
Application to our Lord's sanction of the
Pentateuch 468
Analysis of the Lectures. xxix
PAGE
/3. It explains the atoning virtue of Christ's Death 472
y. It explains the supernatural power of the
Sacraments . . . . . .479
8. It irradiates the meaning of Christ's kingly
office ....... 485
III. Ethical fruitfulness of the doctrine—
Objection—that a Divine Christ supplies no standard
for our imitation 485
Answer— 1. An approximate imitation of Christ
secured
a. by the reality of His Manhood . 486
0. by the grace which flows from Him
as God and Man . . . 487
2. Belief in Christ's Godhead has propa
gated virtues, unattainable by pagan
ism and naturalism—
a. Purity 488
|3. Humility. . , . .491
y. Charity 494
Recapitulation of the argument . . . .497
Faith in a Divine Christ, the strength of the Church
under present dangers 498
Conclusion 499
THE LECTURES.
LECTUEE I.
When Jesus came into the coasts of Ccesarea Philippi, He asked Sis
disciples, saying. Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am 1 And
they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist : some, Elias ;
and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. lie saith unto them,
But whom say ye that I am)—St. Matt. xvi. 13.
of God. (S.Aug, de TJtil. Cred. c. 12. n. 17.) Cicero gives the limited
sense which Pagan Rome attached to the word : ' Qui omnia'quae ad cultum
deorum pertinerent, diligenter retractarent et tanquam relegerent, sunt dicti
religiosi, ex relegendo.' (De Nat. Deorum, ii. 28.) Lactantius gives the
Christian form of the idea, whatever may be thought of his etymology :
'Vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo, et religati sumus, unde ipsa religio nomen
accepit.' (Inst. Div. iv. 24.) Religion is the bond between God and man's
whole nature : in God the heart finds its happiness, the reason its rule
of truth, the will its freedom.
1 See Lecture IV.
»]
6 The 'Son of Man?
moral degradation ; it would be a public confession that he
could only regard a great spiritual work for others as furnishing
an opportunity for adding to his own social capital, or to his
official reputation. When then Jesus Christ so urgently draws
the attention of men to His Personal Self, He places us in a
dilemma. We must either say that He was unworthy of His
own words in the Sermon on the Mount m, or we must confess
that He has some right, and is under the pressure of some
necessity, to do that which would be morally insupportable in a
merely human teacher. Now if this right and necessity exist,
it follows that when our Lord bids us to consider His Personal
rank in the hierarchy of beings, He challenges an answer.
Remark moreover that in the popular sense of the term the
answer is not less a theological answer if it be that of the
Ebionitic heresy than if it be the language of the Nicene Creed.
The Christology of the Church is in reality an integral part of
its theology ; and Jesus Christ raises the central question of
Christian theology when He asks, ' Whom do men say that I
the Son of Man am V
It may be urged that our Lord is inviting attention, not to
His essential Personality, but to His assumed office as the Jewish
Messiah ; that He is, in fact, asking for a confession of His
Messiahship.
Now observe the exact form of our Lord's question, as given
in St. Matthew's Gospel ; which, as Olshausen has remarked, is
manifestly here the leading narrative : ' Whom do men say that
I the Son of Man am V This question involves an assertion,
namely, that the Speaker is the Son of Man. What did He
mean by that designation 1 It is important to remember that
with two exceptions" the title is only applied to our Lord in
the New Testament by His own lips. It was His self-chosen
Name : why did He choose it 1
First, then, it was in itself, to Jewish ears, a clear assertion of
Messiahship. In the vision of Daniel ' One like unto the Son of
Man 0 had come with the clouds of heaven, and there was
given Him dominion and glory and a kingdom.' This kingdom
succeeded in the prophet's vision to four inhuman kingdoms,
correspondent to the four typical beasts ; it was the kingdom of
a prince, human indeed, and yet from heaven. In consequence
P Cf. Dillmann, Das Buch Enoch, 1853, p. 157. Dillmann places the
book in the time of John Hyrcanus, B.C. 130-109, Dr. Pusey would
assign to it a still earlier date. Cf. Daniel the Prophet, p. 390, note 2, and
391, note 3. » St. Matt. xxiv. 30. r Ibid. xxvi. 64.
* ' Den Namen des vibs tou avBpiiirou gebraucht Jesus Selbst auf eine so
eigenthiimliche Weise von Sich, dass man nur annehmen kann, Er habe mit
jenem Namen, wie man auch seine Bedeutung genauer bestimmen mag, irgend
eine Beziehung auf die Messiasidee ausdriicken wollen.' Baur, Das Christen-
thum, p. 37. Cf. also the same author's Vorlesungen iiber Neutestamentliche
Theologie, p. 76, sqq. In St. Matt. x. 23, xiii. 37-41, the official force of the
title is obvious. That it was a simple periphrasis for the personal pronoun,
without any reference to the office or Person of the Speaker, is inconsistent
with Acts vii. 56, and St. Matt.xvi. 13.
*]
8 The 'Son of Man'
As it had been addressed to the prophet Ezekiel', the title
Son of Man seemed to contrast the frail and shortlived life of
men with the boundless strength and the eternal years of the
Infinite God. And as applied to Himself by Jesus, it doubtless
expresses a real Humanity, a perfect and penetrating community
of nature and feeling with the lot of human kind. Thus, when
our Lord says that authority was given Him to execute judg
ment because He is the Son of Man, it is plain that the point
of the reason lies, not in His being Messiah, but in His being
Human. He displays a genuine Humanity which could deem
nothing human strange, and could be touched with a feeling of
the infirmities of the race which He was to judge11. But the
title Son of Man means more than this in its application to our
Lord. It does not merely assert His real incorporation with
our kind ; it exalts Him indefinitely above us all as the repre
sentative, the ideal, the pattern Manx. He is, in a special sense,
the Son of Mankind, the genuine offspring of the race. His is
the Human Life which does justice to the idea of Humanity.
All human history tends to Him or radiates from Him. He is
the point in which humanity finds its unity ; as St. Irenseus
says, He 'recapitulates' itv. He closes the earlier history of
our race ; He inaugurates its future. Nothing local, transient,
individualizing, national, sectarian, dwarfs the proportions of
His world-embracing Character ; He rises above the parentage,
the blood, the narrow horizon which bounded, as it seemed,
His Human Life ; He is the Archetypal Man in Whose presence
distinctions of race, intervals of ages, types of civilization,
degrees of mental culture are as nothing. This sense of the
title seems to be implied in such passages as that in which
He contrasts ' the foxes which have holes, and the birds of the
air which have nests,' with 'the Son of Man Who hath not
where to lay His Head2.' It is not the official Messiah, as
'* OlN"]3 i.e. 'mortal.' (Cf. Gesen. in voc. DIM.) It is so used eighty-
nine times in Ezekiel. Compare Num. xxiii. I a ; Job xxv. 6, xxxv. 8. In
this sense it occurs frequently in the plural. In Ps. viii. 4, 5 and 1th. 1 7
it refers, at least ultimately, to our Lord.
« St. John v. 27; Heb. iv. 15.
» 'Urbild der Menscheit.' Neander, Das Leben Jesu Christi, p. 130, sqq.
Mr. Keble draws out the remedial force of the title as 'signifying that
Jesus was the very seed of the woman, the Second Adam promised to undo
what the first had done.' Eucharistical Adoration, pp. 31-33.
T Adv. Ha;r. III. 18. I. ' Longam hominum expositionem in Se Ipso
recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem prsestans.'
1 St. Matt. viii. 20 ; St. Luke ix. 58.
[ LBCT.
Realforce of our Lord's question. 9
such ; but 1 the fairest among the children of men,' the natural
Prince and Leader, the very prime and flower of human kind,
Whose lot is thus harder than that of the lower creatures, and
in Whose humiliation humanity itself is humbled below the
level of its natural dignity.
As the Son of Man then, our Lord is the Messiah ; He is
a true member of our human race, and He is moreover its
Pattern and ^Representative ; since He fulfils and exhausts that
moral Ideal to which man's highest and best aspirations have
ever pointed onward. Of these senses of the term the first
was the more popular and obvious ; the last would be discerned
as latent in it by the devout reflection of His servants. For the
disciples the term Son of Man implied first of all the Messiah-
ship of their Master, and next, though less prominently, His
true Humanity. When then our Lord enquires 'Whom do
men say that I the Son of Man ami' He is not merely asking
whether men admit what the title Son of Man itself imports,
that is to say, the truth of His Humanity or the truth of His
Messiahship. The point of His question is this :—what is He
besides being the Son of Man? As the Son of Man, He is
Messiah ; but what is the Personality which sustains the
Messianic office ? As the Son of Man, He is truly Human ;
but what is the Higher Nature with which this emphatic claim
to Humanity is in tacit, but manifest contrast ? What is He
in the seat and root of His Being ? Is His Manhood a robe
which He has thrown around a Higher form of pre-existent
Life, or is it His all ? Has He been in existence some thirty
years at most, or are the august proportions of His Life only
to be meted out by the days of eternity? 'Whom say men
that I the Son of Man am ?'
The disciples reply, that at that time, in the public opinion
of Galilee, our Lord was, at the least, a preternatural personage.
On this point there was, it would seem, a general consent. The
cry of a petty local envy which had been raised at Nazareth,
'Is not this the Carpenter's Son?' did not fairly represent the
matured or prevalent opinion of the people. The people did
not suppose that Jesus was in truth merely one of themselves,
only endued with larger powers and with a finer religious
instinct. They thought that His Personality reached back
somehow into the past of their own wonderful history. They
took Him for a saint of ancient days, who had been re-invested
with a bodily form. He was the great expected miracle-working
Elijah ; or He was the disappointed prophet who had followed
1]
10 St. Peters Confession.
His country to its grave at the Captivity; or He was the
recently-martyred preacher and ascetic John the Baptist; or
He was, at any rate, one of the order which for four
hundred years had been lost to Israel; He was one of the
Prophets.
Our- Lord turns from these public misconceptions to the
judgment of that little Body which was already the nucleus
of His future Church : ' But whom say ye that I am 1 ' St. Peter
replies, in the name of the other disciples a, ' Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the Living God.' In marked contrast to the popular
hesitation which refused to recognise explicitly the justice of
the claim so plainly put forward by the assumption of the title
' Son of Man,' the Apostle confesses, ' Thou art the Christ.'
But St. Peter advances a step beyond this confession, and
replies to the original question of our Lord, when he adds ' The
Son of the Living God.' In the first three Evangelists, as well
as in St. John, this solemn designation expresses something
more than a merely theocratic or ethical relationship to GodD.
If St. Peter had meant that Christ was the Son of God solely
in virtue of His membership in the old Theocracy, or by reason
of His consummate moral glory0, the confession would have
* St. Chrysostom, in loc, calls St. Peter ri> arS/in twc o.tto<it6Awv, 6
iravraxov 6ep/i6s.
b See Lect. V. p. ■246, aqq.
c The title of 'sons' is used in the Old Testament to express three
relations to God. (1) God has entered into the relation of Father to all
Israel (Deut. xxxii. 6 ; Isa. lxiii. 16), whence he entitles Israel *My son,'
'My firstborn' (Exod. iv. 22, 23), when claiming the people from Pharaoh;
and Ephraim, ' 31y dear son, a pleasant child' (Jer. xxxi. 20), as an earnest
of restoration to Divine favour. Thus the title is used as a motive to
obedience (Deut. xiv. 1); or in reproach for ingratitude (Ibid, xxxii. 5;
Isa. i. 2, xxx. 1, 9; Jer. iii. 14) ; or especially of such as were God's sons,
not in name only, but in truth (Ps. lxxiii. 15 ; Prov. xiv. 26; and perhaps
Isa. xliii. 6). (2) The title is applied once to judges in the Theocracy
(Ps. lxxxii. 6), ' I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the
Most High/ Here the title refers to the name Elohim, given to the judges
as representing God in the Theocracy, and as judging in His Name and by
His Authority. Accordingly to go to them for judgment is spoken of as
going to Elohim (Deut. xvii. 9). (3) The exact phrase 1 sons of God ' is, with
perhaps one exception (Gen. vi. 2), used of superhuman beings, who until
the Incarnation were more nearly like God than were any of the family
of men (Job i. 6, ii. I, xxxviii. 7). The singular, 'My Son,' 'The Son,'
is used only in prophecy of the Messiah (Ps. ii. 7, 12 ; and Acts xiii. 33 ;
Heb. i. 5, v. 5), and in what is believed to have been a Divine manifestation,
very probably of God the Son (Dan. iii. 25). The line of David being the
line of the Messiah, culminating in the Messiah, as in David's One perfect
Son, it was said in a lower sense of each member of that line, but in its
[ LECT.
Modern interest in the stibject. II
involved nothing distinctive with respect to Jesus Christ,
nothing that was not in a measure true of every good Jew, and
that may not be truer far of every good Christian. If St. Peter
had intended only to repeat another and a practically equivalent
title of the Messiah, he would not have equalled the earlier
confession of a Nathanaeld, or have surpassed the subsequent
admission of a Caiaphas6. If we are to construe his language
thus, it is altogether impossible to condeive why 'flesh and
blood ' could not have ' revealed ' to him so obvious and trivial
an inference from his previous knowledge, or why either the
Apostle or his confession should have been solemnly designated
as the selected Eock on which the Eedeemer would build His
imperishable Church.
Leaving however a fuller discussion of the interpretation of
this particular text, let us note that the question raised at
Csesarea Philippi is still the great question before the modern
world. Whom do men say now that Jesus, the Son of Man, is 1
I. No serious and thoughtful man can treat such a subject
with indifference. I merely do you justice, my brethren, when
I defy you to murmur that we are entering upon a merely
abstract discussion, which has nothing in common with modern
human interests, congenial as it may have been to those whom
some writers have learnt to describe as the professional word-
warriors of the fourth and fifth centuries. You would not be
guilty of including the question of our Lord's Divinity in your
catalogue of tolerabiles ineptice. There is that in the Form of
the Son of Man which prevails to command something more
than attention, even in an age so conspicuous for its boisterous
self-assertion as our own, and in intellectual atmospheres as far
as possible removed from the mind of His believing and adoring
Church. Never since He ascended to His Throne was He the
object of a more passionate adoration than now ; never did He
encounter the glare of a hatred more intense and more defiant :
and between these, the poles of a contemplation incessantly di
rected upon His Person, there are shades and levels of thought and
feeling, many and graduated, here detracting from the highest
full sense only of Messiah, ' I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to
Me a Son' (2 Sam. vii. 14; Heb. i. 5 ; Ps. lxxxix. 37). The application
of the title to collective Israel in Hos. xi. 1, is connected by St. Matthew
(ii. 15) with its deeper force as used of Israel's One true Heir and Repre
sentative. Cf. Mill, Myth. Interp. p. 330. Compare too the mysterious
intimations of Prov. xxx. 4, Ecclus. li. 10, of a Divine Sonship internal to
the Being of God. d St. John i. 49. e St. Matt. xxvi. 63.
12 Christ and modem culture.
expressions of faith, there shrinking from the most violent
extremities of blasphemy. A real indifference to the claims
of Jesus Christ upon the thoughts and hearts of men is scarcely
less condemned by some of the erroneous tendencies of our age
than by its characteristic excellences. An age which has a
genuine love of historical truth must needs fix its eye on that
august Personality which is to our European world, in point of
creative influence, what no other has been or can be. An age
which is distinguished by a keen aesthetic appreciation, if not by
any very earnest practical culture of moral beauty, cannot but be
enthusiastic when it has once caught sight of that incomparable
Life which is recorded in the Gospels. But also, an anti-
dogmatic age is nervously anxious to attack dogma in its central
stronghold, and to force the Human Character and Work of the
Saviour, though at the cost of whatever violence of critical mani
pulation, to detach themselves from the great belief with which
they are indissolubly associated in the mind of Christendom.
And an age, so impatient of the supernatural as our own, is
irritated to the highest possible point of disguised irritability by
the spectacle of a Life which is supernatural throughout, which
positively bristles with the supernatural, which begins with
a supernatural birth, and ends in a supernatural ascent to
heaven, which is prolific of physical miracle, and of which the
moral wonders are more startling than the physical. Thus it is
that the interest of modern physical enquiries into the laws of
the Cosmos or into the origin of Man is immediately heightened
when these enquiries are suspected to have a bearing, however
indirect, upon Christ's Sacred Person. Thus your study of the
mental sciences, aye, and of philology, ministers whether it will
or no to His praise or His dishonour, and your ethical specula
tions cannot complete themselves without raising the whole
question of His Authority. And such is Christ's place in
history, that a line of demarcation between its civil and its
ecclesiastical elements seems to be practically impossible ; your
ecclesiastical historians are prone to range over the annals of
the world, while your professors of secular history habitually
deal with the central problems and interests of theology.
If Christ could have been ignored, He would have been
ignored in Protestant Germany, when Christian Faith had been
eaten out of the heart of that country by the older Eationalism.
Yet scarcely any German 'thinker' of note can be named who
has not projected what is termed a Christology. The Christ of
Kant is the Ideal of Moral Perfection, and as such, we are told,
[ LECT.
Christ and recent philosophy. 13
he is to be carefully distinguished from the historical Jesus,
since of this Ideal alone, and in a transcendental sense, can the
statements of the orthodox creed be predicated f. The Christ
of Jacobi is a Religious Ideal, and worship addressed to the
historical Jesus is denounced as sheer idolatry, unless beneath
the recorded manifestation the Ideal itself be discerned and
honoured %. According to Fichte, on the contrary, the real
interest of philosophy in Jesus is historical and not metaphysical ;
Jesus first possessed an insight into the absolute unity of the
being of man with that of God, and in revealing this insight He
communicated the highest knowledge which man can possess11.
Of the later Pantheistic philosophers, Schelling proclaims that
the Christian theology is hopelessly in error, when it teaches
that at a particular moment of time God became Incarnate,
since God is ' external to' all time, and the Incarnation of God
is an eternal fact. But Schelling contends that the man Christ
Jesus is the highest point or effort of this eternal incarnation,
and the beginning of its real manifestation to men : ' none before
Him after such a manner has revealed to man the Infinite'.'
And the Christ of Hegel is not the actual Incarnation of God in
Jesus of Nazareth, but the symbol of His incarnation in
humanity at large J. Fundamentally differing, as do these con
ceptions, in various ways, from the creed of the Church of
Christ, they nevertheless represent so many efforts of non-
f Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft. Werke, Bd. x.
p. 73, esp. p. 142.
s Schrift von den Gottl. Dingen, p. 62, sqq.
h Anweisung zum seligen Leben Vorl. 6. Werke, Bd. v. p. 482.
1 Vorlesungen ttber die methode des Akad. Studien. Werke, Bd. v.
p. 298, sqq.
1 Rel. Phil. Bd. ii. p. 263. This idea is developed by Strauss. See his
Glaubenslehre, ii. 209, sqq. ; and Leben Jesu, Auf. 2, Bd. ii. p. 739, sqq.
* Der Schliissel der ganzen Christologie ist, das als Subject der Pradikate,
welehe die Kirche Christo beilegt, statt eines Individuums eine Idee, aber
eine reale, nicht Kantisch unwirkliche gesetzt wird. . . . Die Menscheit ist die
Vereinigung der beiden Naturen, der Menschgewordene Gott .... Durch
den Glauben an diesen Christus, namentlioh an Seinen Tod und seine
Auferstehung wird der Menscb vor Gott gerecht, d. h., durch die Belebung
der Idee der Menscheit in sich,' &c. Feuerbach has carried this forward into
pure materialism, and he openly scorns and denounces Christianity : Strauss
has more recently described Feuerbach as 'the man who put the dot upon
the i which we had found,' and he too insists upon the moral necessity of
rejecting Christianity; Lebens und Characterbild Marklin3, pp. 124, 125,
sqq., quoted by Luthardt, Apolog. p. 301. Other disciples of Hegel, such
as Marheinecke, Rosenkranz, and Goschel, have endeavoured to give to their
master's teaching a more positive direction.
*]
14 Christ and the negative criticism.
Christian thought to do such homage as is possible to its great
Object ; they are so many proofs of the interest which Jesus
Christ necessarily provokes in the modern world, even when it is
least disposed to own His true supremacy.
Nor is the direction which this interest has taken of late
years in the sphere of unbelieving theological criticism less
noteworthy in its bearings on our present subject. The earlier
Rationalism concerned itself chiefly with the Apostolical age.
It was occupied with a perpetual analysis and recombination
of the various influences which were supposed to have created
the Catholic Church and the orthodox creed. St. Paul was
the most prominent person in the long series of hypotheses
by which Eationalism professed to account for the existence
of Catholic Christianity. St. Paul was said to be the 'author'
of that idea of a universal religion which was deemed to be
the most fundamental and creative element in the Christian
creed : St. Paul's was the vivid imagination which had thrown
around the life and death of the Prophet of Nazareth a halo
of superhuman glory, and had fired an obscure Jewish sect
with the ambition of founding a spiritual empire able to
control and embrace the world. St. Paul, in short, was held
to be the real creator of Christianity ; and our Lord was
thrown into the background, whether from a surviving instinct
of awe, or on the ground of His being relatively insignificant.
This studied silence of active critical speculation with respect
to Jesus Christ, might indeed have been the instinct of reve
rence, but it was at least susceptible of a widely different
interpretation.
In our day this equivocal reserve is no longer possible.
The passion for reality, for fact, which is so characteristic
of the thought of recent years, has carried critical enquiry
backwards from the consciousness of the Apostle to that on
which it reposed. The interest of modern criticism centres
in Him Who is ever most prominently and uninterruptedly
present to the eye of faith. The popular controversies around
us tend more and more to merge in the one great question
respecting our Lord's Person : that question, it is felt, is
bound up with the very existence of Christianity. And a
discussion respecting Christ's Person obliges us to consider
the mode of His historical manifestation ; so that His Life
was probably never studied before by those who practically
or avowedly reject Him so eagerly as it is at this moment.
For Strauss He may be no more than a leading illustration
[ LECT.
Answers to Christ's question, (i) the Ebionitic, 15
x St. John i. 14. Cf. Meyer in loc. for a refutation of Zeller's attempt
to limit crapf in this passage to the bodily organism, as exclusive of the
anima rationalis.
y St. John viii. 40 ; I Tim. ii. 5.
z ffvW'fi^nj 4v yaarpt, St. Luke i. 31. irpb rod ffvWfibBrivai avrbv 4v
Koi\la, Ibid. ii. 21. evp4drj iv ycurrpl exovtra 4k Tlvevp.aros 'hyiov,
St. Matt. i. 18. Tb yap 4y ai>Tjj yeyyijdev 4k Tlvthfi(n6s 4<TTty 'A-yfou, Ibid,
i. 20 ; Isa. vii. 14.
» St. Matt. i. 25 ; St. Luke ii. 7, 11 ; Gal. iv. 4: i$aireaTti\ti> 6 Bcbs
rbv Tidy ainov, yev6fi.(voy 4k yvvaiK6s.
b St. Luke xi. 27 : /jAo-toi ois 4BiiKatras. c Ibid. ii. 21.
d Ibid. ii. 12 : Bp4<pos 4airapyavui/^4yoy, KtlpLtvov 4v ttj (pdrvrj.
e Ibid. ii. 28 : xal ainbs 454£a.To avrb us tos d-yxaAas clvtov.
t Ibid. ii. 40 : rb He vatSlov TjH^aye.
B Ibid. ii. 52 : 'l7)ffoCs irpoeKOirre . . . ^Aiki?.
11 St. John ii. 2.
1 St. Luke. v. 29 : SoxV neyd^yy
k St. Luke vii. 36. 1 St. John xii. 2.
i] C 2
20 Witness of Scripture to Christ's Human Body.
feredm, the bread and fish of which He partook before the
eyes of His disciples in the early dawn on the shore of the
Lake of Galilee, even after His Resurrection11,—are witnesses
that He came, like one of ourselves, 'eating and drinking0.'
When He is recorded to have taken no food during the forty
days of the Temptation, this implies the contrast presented
by His ordinary habit p. Indeed, He seemed to the men of
His day much more dependent on the physical supports of
life than the great ascetic who had preceded Him 9. He
knew, by experience, what are the pangs of hunger, after the
forty days' fast in the wilderness r, and in a lesser degree,
as may be supposed, when walking into Jerusalem on the
Monday before His Passion8. The profound spiritual sense
of His redemptive cry, ' I thirst,' uttered while He was hanging
on the Cross, is not obscured, when its primary literal meaning,
that while dying He actually endured that wellnigh sharpest
form of bodily suffering, is explicitly recognised *. His deep
sleep on the Sea of Galilee in a little bark which the waves
threatened momentarily to engulf", and His sitting down at
the well of Jacob, through great exhaustion produced by a
long journey on foot from Judaea x, proved that He was subject
at times to the depression of extreme fatigue. And, not to
dwell at length upon those particular references to the several
parts of His bodily frame which occur in Holy Scripture y,
it is obvious to note that the evangelical account of His
physical Sufferings, of His Death2, of His Burial a, and of
the Wounds in His Hands and Feet and Side after His Eesur-
h St. John xx. 27; St. Luke xxiv. 39 : ISerc ras xtip&s /iov Kal tovs
ir<58as juov, 8ti alrbs iyd tlftc <fni\a<pJ]<raT4 Kal IStrf 8ti mtv/ia trdpKa
Kal ooTea ovk *x(i Kadws 4p.h dewptiTt exovra.
0 1 St. Pet. iii. 18 : 9avaru0tls fi^v aapKl, fovronfttts 8e wytifuert iv eJ
Kal tois 4v (pv\ctK7j Trvev/Acurtv iropevBils 4ni]pv£ev. The rip before *rei5juaTt in
the Textus Receptus being only an insertion by a copyist, irceujua here means
our Lord's Human Soul. No other passage in the New Testament places It
in more vivid contrast with His Body.
d St. Luke X. 31: fiyaWidffaro T<p mei/tari.
8 St. Mark x. 21: 6 5e 'lijffovs 4fi^\4tpas aury fyy&irrifftv avr6v.
1 St. John xi. 5.
s St. Mark iii. 5 : TepiPXe^dp.tvos aiirobs fier' opyrjs, <rv\hvTrovp.evos M tj
Trupdaet ttjs KapStas al/rav.
h St. Matt. ix. 36: 4(rjr\ayxvi(T6r] irtpl ainwv.
1 St. John. xi. 33-35: ,Ir)trovs olv us ftSfV airijv KXaiovtrav (col rovs <rvvt\06i/Tas
avrrj 'lovSalovs K\aiovras, 4v*f3ptp.i\(TaTO t$ weti/ian, Kal 4rdpa^ey eavrdy. . . .
'ESdxpvaev 6 'Itjvovs.
k St. Luke xix. 41: 'lfikv ttjv tt6\iv, %K\av<rev 4tr' abiy.
1 St. John xii. 27: vvv 7] tyvxv Mou rvrdpaxrat.
m Ibid. xiii. 21: 6 'iTjffoGs 4rapdxBv TV irreiijuaTi koI 4fjLapr{ip7](re.
I]
22 Reality of Christ's Manhood not
His Blood before they nail Him to the Cross11. His Human
Will consciously submits itself to a Higher Will °, and He learns
obedience by the discipline of pain P. He carries His dependence
still further, He is habitually subject to His parents?; He recog
nises the fiscal regulations of a pagan state r ; He places Himself
in the hands of His enemies 8 ; He is crucified through weak
ness If an Apostle teaches that all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge are hidden in Him a, an Evangelist records that
He increases in wisdom as He increases in stature x. Conform
ably with these representations, we find Him as Man expressing
creaturely dependence upon God by prayer. He rises up a
great while before day at Capernaum, and departs into a solitary
place, that He may pass the hours in uninterrupted devotion y.
He offers to Heaven strong crying with tears in Gethsemane z ;
He intercedes majestically for His whole redeemed Church in
the Paschal supper-room a ; He asks pardon for His Jewish and
Gentile murderers at the very moment of His Crucifixion b ; He
resigns His departing Spirit into His Father's Hands c.
Thus, as one Apostle teaches, He took a Body of Flesh d, and
His whole Humanity both of Soul and Body shared in the sin
less infirmities which belong to our common nature e. To deny
this fundamental truth, ' that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh,'
■ St. Mark xiv. 33: ijp^aro iic8anfSt?o-9<u Kal iSlinovur, Kal \eyei avrois,
' Xlepl\vn6s 4<rriv rj vxh Mou Qavdrov.' St. Luke xxii. 44 : yev6fxevos iv
iyuylf itntvearepov irpooTivxero, iyevero Se i iSpat airrov axrel 6p6p.f3oi ou-
fiaros KarafSaivovres 4wl r^v yijv. Cf. Heb. V. 7.
0 St. Luke xxii. 42 : /xii t6 BeXitiid piov, aAAh rb abv yereaBoi.
P Heb. V. 8 : efladev a(j> Sjv eira.de r^v viraKorjv.
1 St. Luke ii. 5 I '• fa inroTa(r(r6fievo$ avTols.
* St. Matt. xxii. 21. For our Lord's payment of the Temple tribute, cf.
Ibid. xvii. 25, 27.
■Ibid. xvii. 225 St. Johnx. 18: ovSeh aipei outV [sc. tV +«x4' P-ov~\
aw 4fxovt oAV 4yi> rlOrjfii airrov an* ifiavTov.
6 2 Cor. xiii. 4 : eo-Tavpudrj 11 aoOevelas.
u Col. ii. 3: iv $ elffi ndvres ol Oijffavpol Trjs ffotpias Kal ttjs yvojaea>$ air6icpv(pot.
x St. Luke ii. 40 : iKparaiovro nvev^ari. ver. 52. npoeKonre aoipia. See
Lect. VIII. y St. Mark i. 35.
* Heb. v. 7: Iv rats fifiepais tt)s o-apxhs airrov, 8ct)<T(is t« Kal Uerriptas ....
fiera Kpavyrjs l(rxvpas Kal Sojcpvwv npoaeveyKas.
a St. John xvii. 1: inripe tovs 6(pQaAp.ovs aitrov els rbv ovpavbv, Kal elne.
b St. Luke xxiii. 34: ndrep, &(pes airroTs' oit ycLp oftWt ri noiovai. That
this prayer referred to the Jews, as well as the Roman soldiers, is clear from
Acts iii. 1 7. 0 St. Luke xxiii. 46.
d Col. i. 22 : trdfian tt)s o~apK6s.
6 Heb. ii. 11: 5 rc yap ayidfav Kal ol ayiaCofievot 4£ kvbs ndvres. Ver. 14:
fiereo~xe aapnos Kal alfiaros. Ver. 1 7 : SxpeiKe Kara ndvra ro?s a8e\<pois dfioiw-
drjvat. Ibid. iv. 15 : ncneipatrp.evov 5e Kara ndvra xd9* dfioi6r7ira.
[ LECT.
forfeited by Its prerogative graces. 23
is, in the judgment of another Apostle, the mark of the Deceiver,
of the Antichrist f. Nor do the prerogatives of our Lord's
Manhood destroy Its perfection and reality, although they do
undoubtedly invest It with a robe of mystery, which Faith must
acknowledge, but which she cannot hope to penetrate. Christ's
Manhood is not unreal because It is impersonal ; because in Him
the place of any created individuality at the root of thought and
feeling and will is supplied by the Person of the Eternal Word,
Who has wrapped around His Being a created Nature through
which, in its unmutilated perfection, He acts upon humankind S.
Christ's Manhood is not unreal, because It is sinless ; because
the entail of any taint of transmitted sin is in Him cut off by a
supernatural birth of a Virgin Mother ; and because His whole
life of thought, feeling, will, and action is in unfaltering harmony
with the law of absolute Truth \ Nor is the reality of His
Manhood impaired by any exceptional beauty whether of out
ward form or of mental endowment, such as might become One
'fairer than the children of men*,' and taking precedence of
them in all things k ; since in Him our nature does but resume
its true and typical excellence as the crowning glory of the
visible creation of God
f I St. John iv. 3: wav wevfia f) dfioKoyet 'Itjcovv Xpiarbv iv ffaput 4\tj\v
dora, iic tov ®eov ioTi. 2 St. John 7 : ttoAAo! ir\dvot elo-TjKBov els tov icdfffiov,
ei /LtJj6 tAyrlxpio'Tos.
Ka\ ipoXoyovvTts 'l7j(row Xptarbv ipx^pevov iv aapKi' ovros iartv i irXdvos
& The avvirotrraola. of our Lord's Humanity is a result of the Hypostatic
Union. To deny it is to assert that there are Two Persons in Christ, or else
it is to deny that He is more than Man. Compare Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 52. 3,
who appeals against Nestorius to Heb. ii. 16, ovyap Sifirov ayyAtoc imXap,-
frdveTai, i\\a aveppaTos 'A@po.ap im\ap$dveTai. At His Incarnation the Eter
nal Word took on Him Human Nature, not a Human Personality. Luther
appears to have denied the Impersonality of our Lord's Manhood. But see
Dorner, Person Christi, Bd. ii. p. 540.
h The Sinlessness of our Lord's Manhood is implied in St. Luke i. 35.
Thus He is ov & Tlar^jp ryyiao'e kol aiteaTeiKev els rbv ttiapov, St. John x. 36 j
and He could challenge His enemies to convict Him of sin, St. John viii. 46.
In St. Mark x. 18, St Luke xviii. 19, He is not denying that He is good;
but He insists that none should call Him so who did not believe Him to be
God. St. Paul describes Him as rbv pi) yv6vra apaprlav, 2 Cor. v. 2 1 ; and
Christ is expressly said to be x^P^ ctpaprlas, Heb. iv. 15 ; '60-tos, &ca«os,
apiavTos, Kexwpiapcvos atrb rav afiaprwhwv, Heb. vii. 26 ; apvbs &papos ko.1
SaTriAor, 1 St. Pet. i. 19 ; 4 a-yios ko.1 Ukoaos, Acts iii. 14. Still more em
phatically we are told that apaprla iv avra ovk fori, I St. John iii. 5 ; while
the same truth is indirectly taught, when St. Paul speaks of our Lord as sent
iv 6p.01d3p.aTi aapKbs apaprias, Rom. viii. 3. Mr. F. W. Newman does justice
to the significance of a Sinless Manhood, although, unhappily, he disbelieves
in It ; Phases of Faith, p. 141, sqq. i Ps. xlv. 3.
k Col. i. 18: iv traat Tpureiav. 1 Psalm viii. 6-8. Cp. Heb. ii. 6-10.
'] -
24 Witness of the Church to Christ's true Manhood.
This reality and perfection of our Lord's Manhood has been
not less jealously maintained by the Church than it is clearly
asserted in the pages of Scripture. From the first the Church
has taught that Jesus Christ is 'Perfect Man, of a reasonable
Soul and Human Flesh subsisting111.' It is sometimes hinted
that believers in our Saviour's Godhead must necessarily enter
tain some prejudice against those passages of Scripture which
expressly assert the truth of His Manhood. It is presumed that
such passages must be regarded by them as so many difficulties to
be surmounted or evaded by a theory which is supposed to be
conscious of their hostility to itself. Whereas, in truth, to a
Catholic instinct, each declaration of Scripture, whatever be its
apparent bearing, is welcome as being an unveiling of the Mind
of God, and therefore as certainly reconcileable with other sides
of truth, whether or no the method of such reconciliation be
immediately obvious. As a matter of fact, our Lord's Humanity
has been insisted upon by the great Church teachers of antiquity
not less earnestly than His Godhead. They habitually argue
that it belonged to His essential Truth to be in reality what He
seemed to be. He seemed to be human ; therefore He was
Human11. Yet His Manhood, so they proceed to maintain,
would have been fictitious, if any one faculty or element of
human nature had been wanting to It. Therefore His Reason
able Soul was as essential as His Bodily Frame0. Without a
Eeasonable Soul His Humanity would have been but an animal
existence P ; and the intellectual side of man's nature would have
been unredeemed 9. Nor did the Church in her collective ca
pacity ever so insist on Christ's Godhead as to lose sight of the.
"i Athanasian Creed.
n St. Irenseus, Adv. Hffir. v. I. 2 : el 8£ /t^ &v &v6payiros tyaivsro &v8pamost
ofire t $\v 4it' aA7)0f(ay, e/xctv€ wed/ia ®eov, 4wel a6parov rd irrct/jua, ofrre a\^-
Ofid Tis "f\v kv auTy, oh yilp jjv Ircetpa airep ttycdvtTo. Tert. De Carne Christi,
cap. 5 : ' Si caro cum passionibus ficta, et spiritus ergo cum virtutibus falsus.
Quid dimidias mendacio Christum ? Totus Veritas est. Maluit crede [non]
nasci quam ex aliqua parte mentiri, et quidem in Semet ipsum, ut camem
gestaret sine ossibus duram, sine musculis solidam, sine sanguine cruentam,
sine tunicS vestitam, sine fame esurientem, sine dentibus edentem, sine
lingufv loquentem, ut phantasma auribus fuit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis.'
St. Aug. De Div. Qu. 83. qu. 14 : 'Si phantasma fuit corpus Christi, fefellit
Christus, et si fefellit, Veritas non est. Est autem Veritas Christus. Non
ergo phantasma fuit Corpus Ejus.' Docetism struck at the very basis of
truth, by sanctioning Pyrrhonism. St. Iren. Adv. Heer. iv. 33.
0 St. Aug. Ep. 187, ad Dardan. n. 4: 'Non est Homo Perfectus, si vel
anima carni, vel animse ipsi mens humana defuerit.' Confess, vii. c. 19.
P St. Aug. De Div. Qu. 83, qu. 80. n. 1.
9 St. Cyr. Alex. De Inc. c. 15.
[ LECT.
Importance of this truth to the life of the Soul. 25
truth of His Perfect Manhood. Whether by the silent force of
the belief of her children, or by her representative writers on
behalf of the faith, or by the formal decisions of her councils,
she has ever resisted the disposition to sacrifice the confession
of Christ's created nature to that of His uncreated Godhead'.
She kept at bay intellectual temptations and impulses which
might have easily overmastered the mind of a merely human
society. When Ebionites were abroad, she maintained against
the Docetse that our Saviour's body was not fictitious or appari-
tional. When the mutterings of that Humanitarian movement
which culminated in the great scandal of Paulus of Samosata
were distinctly audible, she asserted the truth of our Lord's
Human Soul against Beryllus of Bostra B. When Arianism had
not as yet ceased to be formidable, she was not tempted by
Apollinaris to admit that the Logos in Christ took the place of
the rational element in man. While Nestorianism was still
vigorous, she condemned the Monophysite formula which prac
tically made Christ an unincarnate God : nor did she rest until
the Monothelite echo of the more signal error had been silenced
by her assertion of the reality of His Human Will.
Nor is the Manhood of our Saviour prized by the Church
only as a revealed dogma intellectually essential to the formal
integrity of the Creed. Every believing Christian knows that
it touches the very heart of his inner life. What becomes of
the one Mediator between God and man, if the Manhood
whereby He places Himself in contact with us men is but
unreal and fictitious 1 What becomes of His Human Example,
of His genuine Sympathy, of His agonizing and world-
redeeming Death, of His plenary representation of our race
in heaven, of the recreative virtue of His Sacraments, of the
'touch of nature' which makes Him, most holy as He is, in
very deed kin with us ? All is forthwith uncertain, evanescent,
unreal. If Christ be not truly Man, the chasm which parted
earth and heaven has not been bridged over. God, as before
the Incarnation, is still awful, remote, inaccessible. Tertullian's
r It may suffice to quote the language of the Council of Chalcedon, a.d.
451 : TfAflov rbv abrbv iv ©e^njTt ko! reKdov rbv abrbv iv av9pwn6T7]Tt, Qehv
aKyOws koI &v8pwirov ahTjBus, rbv abrbv Ik ipvxys koytKTjs Hal a&uaros, 6/xoov-
auiv rep IlaTpl Kwrb. ri]v Qe6rr]Ta koI dfJLOOvfftov rbv avrbv Tjalv Kara t^v
av9po}w6TTjTat Kara trdvTa flfioiov 7jutv x<opis ctfiaprlas. Routh. Opusc. ii. 78.
When these words were spoken, the cycle of possible controversy on the
subject was complete. The Monothelite question had virtually been settled
by anticipation.
' Socr. H. E. iii. 7 : futyvxov thai rbv ivavBptmiiaavTa. Syn. Bost. anno 244.
I] .
26 "Jesus Christ is God in no equivocal sense.
inference is no exaggeration : ' Cum mendacium deprehenditur
Christi Caro, . . . omnia quse per Carnem Christi gesta sunt,
mendacio gesta sunt Eversum est totum Dei opus1.' Or,
as St. Cyril of Jerusalem tersely presses the solemn argument :
« (pdvrcuTfia rfv f] fvav8pa>mj(Tis, (pavTa<rp.a Kai ij <Twrrjptau.
2. Let it be observed, on the other hand, that the Nicene
assertion of our Blessed Lord's Divinity does not involve any
tacit mutilation or degradation of the idea conveyed by the
sacred Name of God. When Jesus Christ is said by His Church
to be God, that word is used in its natural, its absolute, its
incommunicable sense. This must be constantly borne in mind,
if we would escape from equivocations which might again and
again obscure the true point before us. For Arianism will
confess Christ's Divinity, if, when it terms Him God, it may
really mean that He is only a being of an inferior and created
nature. Socinianism will confess Christ's Divinity, if this con
fession involves nothing more emphatic than an acknowledge
ment of the fact that certain moral features of God's character
shone forth from the Human Life of Christ with an absolutely
unrivalled splendour. Pantheism will confess Christ's Divinity,
but then it is a Divinity which He must share with the uni
verse. Christ may well be divine, when all is divine, although
Pantheism too may admit that Christ is divine in a higher
sense than any other man, because He has more clearly recog
nised or exhibited 'the eternal oneness of the finite and the
Infinite, of God and humanity.' The coarsest forms of unbelief
will confess our Lord's Divinity, if they may proceed to add,
by way of explanation, that such language is but the echo of
an apotheosis, informally decreed to the prophet of Nazareth by
the fervid but uncritical enthusiasm of His Church.
No : the Divinity of Jesus Christ is not to be thus emptied
of its most solemn and true significance. It is no mere titular
distinction^ such as the hollow or unthinking flattery of a mul
titude might yield to a political chief, or to a distinguished
philanthropist. Indeed Jesus Christ Himself, by His own
teaching, had made such an apotheosis of Himself morally
impossible. He had, as no teacher before Him, raised, ex
panded, spiritualized man's idea of the Life and Nature of the
Great Creator. Baur has remarked that this higher exhibition
of the solitary and incommunicable Life of God is nowhere so
apparent as in that very Gospel the special object of which is to
' Adv. Marc. iii. 8. n Catech. iv. 9.
[ LECT.
Christ is not the god of an Apotheosis. 27
exhibit Christ Himself as the eternal "Word made Flesh *.
Indeed God was too vividly felt to be a living Presence by the
early Christians, to be transformed by them upon occasion into
a decoration which might wreathe the brow of any, though it
were the highest human virtue. In heathendom this was
naturally otherwise. Yet animal indulgence and intellectual
scepticism must have killed out the sense of primary truths
which nature and conscience had originally taught, before
imperial Rome could feel no difficulty in decreeing temples and
altars to such samples of our race as were not a few of the men
who successively filled the throne of the Caesars y. The Church,
with her eye upon the King Eternal, Immortal, Invisible2,
could never have raised Jesus to the full honours of Divinity,
had He been merely Man. And Christianity from the first has
proclaimed herself, not the authoress of an apotheosis, but the
child and the product of an Incarnation.
She could not have been both. Speaking historically, an
apotheosis belongs strictly to the Greek world ; while a mimicry
of the Incarnation is characteristically oriental. Speaking phi
losophically, the god of an apotheosis is a creation of human
thought or of human fancy ; the God of an incarnation is
presupposed as an objectively existing Being, Who manifests
Himself by it in the sphere of sense. Speaking religiously,
belief in an apotheosis must be fatal to the primary movements
of piety towards its object, whenever men are capable of earnest
and honest reflection ; while it is incontestable that the doctrine
of an incarnation stimulates piety in a degree precisely pro
portioned to the sincerity of the faith which welcomes it. Thus
the ideas of an apotheosis and an incarnation stand towards
each other in historical, philosophical, and religious contrast.
Need I add that religiously, philosophically, and historically,
Christianity is linked to the one, and is simply incompatible
with the other?
1 Vorlesungen iiber N. T. Theologie, p. 354.
7 On this subject see Dollinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, bk. viii.
pt. 2. § 1 (apotheosis). The city of Cyzicus was deprived of its freedom for
being unwilling to worship Augustus (Tac. Ann. iv. 36). Thrasea Psetus was
held guilty of treason for refusing to believe in the deification of Poppsea
(Tac. Ann. xvi. 22). Caligula insisted on being worshipped as a god during
his lifetime (Suetonius, Caius, xxi. 22). On the number of cattle sacrificed
to Domitian, see Pliny, Panegyr. xi. The worship of Antinous, who had
lived on terms of criminal intercourse with Hadrian, was earnestly promoted
by that Emperor. Dollinger reckons fifty-three apotheoses between that of
Csesar and that of Diocletian, fifteen of which were those of ladies belonging
to the Imperial family. « 1 Tim. i. 1 7.
I]
28 Christ is not God in
No : the Divinity of Jesus is not such divinity as Pantheism
might ascribe to Him. In the belief of the Church Jesus
stands alone among the sons of men as He of Whom it can
be said without impiety, that He is not merely divine, but
God. Such a restriction in favour of a Single Personality,
contradicts the very vital principle of Pantheistic thought.
Schelling appropriately contends that the Indians with their
many incarnations shew more intelligence respecting the real
relations of God and the world than is implied by the doctrine
of a solitary incarnation, as taught in the Creed of Christendom.
Upon Pantheistic grounds, this is perfectly reasonable; although
it might be added that any limited number of incarnations,
however considerable, would only approximate to the real
demands of the theory which teaches that God is incarnate
in everything. But then, such divinity as Pantheism can
ascribe to Christ is, in point of fact, no divinity at all. When
God is nature, and nature is God, everything indeed is divine,
but also nothing is Divine ; and Christ shares this phantom-
divinity with the universe, nay with the agencies of moral
evil itself. In truth, our God does not exist in the appre
hension of Pantheistic thinkers; since, when such truths as
creation and personality are denied, the very idea of God is
fundamentally sapped, and although the prevailing belief of
mankind may still be humoured by a discreet retention of
its conventional language, the broad practical result is in reality
neither more nor less than Atheism.
You may indeed remind me of an ingenious distinction,
by which it is suggested that the idea of God is not thus
sacrificed in Pantheistic systems, and on the ground that
although God and the universe are substantially identical,
they are not logically so. Logically speaking, then, you pro
ceed to distinguish between God and the universe. You look
out upon the universe, and you arrive at the idea of God by
a double process, by a process of abstraction, and by a process
of synthesis. In the visible world you come into sensible
contact with the finite, the contingent, the relative, the im
perfect, the individual. Then, by a necessary operation of your
reason, you disengage from these ideas their correlatives; you
ascend to a contemplation of infinity, of necessity, of the
absolute, the perfect, the universal. Here abstraction has done
its work, and synthesis begins. By synthesis you combine
the general ideas which have been previously reached through
abstraction. These general ideas are made to converge in your
[ LECT.
the sense of Pantheism. 29
brain under the presidency of one central and unifying idea,
■which you call God. You are careful to insist that this god
is not a real but an ideal being ; indeed it appears that he
is so ideal, that he would cease to be god if he could be supposed
to become real. God, you say, is the ' Idea ' of the universe ;
the universe is the 'realization' of God. The god who is
enthroned in your thought must have abandoned all contact
with reality; let him re-enter but for a moment upon the
domain of reality, and, such are the exigencies of your doctrine,
that he must forthwith be compelled to abdicate his throne a.
But meanwhile, as you contend, he is logically distinct from
the universe ; and you repel with some warmth the orthodox
allegation, that to identify him substantially with the universe,
amounts to a practical denial of his existence.
Yet after all, let us ask what is really gained by thus
distinguishing between a logical and a substantial identity1!
What is this god, who is to be thus rescued from the
religious ruins which mark the track of Pantheistic thought?
Is he, by the terms of your own distinction, anything more
than an 'Idea;' and must he not vary in point of perfection
with the accuracy and exhaustiveness of those processes of
abstraction and synthesis by which you undertake to construct
him i And if this be so, is it worth our while to discuss
the question whether or not so precarious an 'Idea' was or
was not incarnate in Jesus Christ? Upon the terms of the
theory, would not an incarnation of God be fatal to His
' logical, ' that is to His only admitted mode of existence ?
or would such divinity, if we could ascribe it to Jesus Christ,
be anything higher than the fleeting and more or less imperfect
speculation of a finite brain ?
Certainly Pantheism would never have attained to so strong
a position as that which it actually holds in European as well
as in Asiatic thought, unless it had embodied a great element
of truth, which is too often ignored by some arid Theistic
systems. To that element of truth we Christians do justice,
when we confess the Omnipresence and Incomprehensibility
of God ; and still more, when we trace the gracious con
sequences of His actual Incarnation in Jesus Christ. But we
Christians know also that the Great Creator is essentially
distinct from the work of His Hands, and that He is What
b ' Je mehr sich so dem erkennenden Glauben die Ueberzeugung von der
Einzigkeit der sittlichen Hoheit Christi erschliesst, desto natürlicher ja
nothwendiger muss es nun auch von diesem festen Punkte aus demselben
Glauben werden, mit Verständniss Christo in das Gebiet Seiner Reden zu
folgen, wo Er Seiner eigentbümlichen und einzigen Beziehung zu dem Vater
gedenkt. Jesu Heiligkeit und Weisheit, durch die Er unter den sündigen,
vielirrenden Menschen einzig dasteht, weiset so, da sie nicht kann noch will
ah rein subjektives, menschliches Produkt angesehen werden, auf einen
übernatürlichen Ursprung Seiner Person. Diese muss, um inmitten der
Sünderwelt begreiflich zu sein, aus einer eigenthümlichen und wunderbar
schöpferischen That Gottes abgeleitet, ja es muss in Christus, wenn doch
Gott nicht deistisch von der Welt getrennt sondern in Liebe ihr nahe und
wesentlich als Liebe zu denken ist, von Gott aus betrachtet eine Incarnation
göttlicher Liebe, also göttlichen Wesens gesehen werden, was Ihn als den
Punkt erscheinen lässt, wo Gott und die Menscheit einzig und innigst
geeinigt sind. Freilich, man lässt sich in diesem Stücke noch so oft
durch einen abstracten, subjectiven Moralismus irre machen, der die Tiefe
des Ethischen nicht erfasst. Aber wer tiefer bückend auch von einer
ontologischen und metaphysischen Bedeutung des Ethischen weiss, dem
muss die Einzigkeit der Heiligkeit und Liebe Christi ihren Grund in einer
Einzigkeit auch Seines Wesens haben, diese aber in Gottes Sich mittheil
ender, offenbarender Liebe.' (Dorner, Person Christi, Bd. ii. pp. hu,
1212.)
*]
32 Christ is not the 'inferior god' of Arianism.
sense 'divinize' a created person0, robing him with so much of
moral beauty and force of deity as a creature can bear. But
this blessed gift does not justify us in treating the creature to
whom it is vouchsafed as the Infinite and Eternal God. When
Socinianism deliberately names God, it means equally with
ourselves, not merely a Perfect Moral Being, not merely Perfect
Love and Perfect Justice, but One Whose Knowledge and
Whose Power are as boundless as His Love. It does not mean
that Christ is God in this, the natural sense of the word, when
it confesses His moral divinity ; yet, beyond all controversy,
this full and natural sense of the term is the sense of the
Nicene Creed.
No : Jesus Christ is not divine in the sense of Arius. He
is not the most eminent and ancient of the creatures, decorated
by the necessities of a theological controversy with That Name
which a serious piety can dare to yield to One Being alone.
Ascribe to the Christ of Arius an antiquity as remote as you
will from the age of the Incarnation, place him at a height
as high as any you can conceive, above the highest archangel ;
still what, after all, is this ancient, this super-angelic being
but a creature who had a beginning, and who, if the Author of
his existence should so will, may yet cease to be ? Such a being,
however exalted, is parted from the Divine Essence by a
fathomless chasm ; whereas the Christ of Catholic Christendom
is internal to That Essence ; He is of one Substance with the
Father—opoovatos ™ narpi ; and in this sense, as distinct from
any other, He is properly and literally Divine.
This assertion of the Divinity of Jesus Christ depends on
a truth beyond itself. It postulates the existence in God of
certain real distinctions having their necessary basis in the
Essence of the Godhead. That Three such distinctions exist is
a matter of Bevelation. In the common language of the
Western Church these distinct Forms of Being are named Per
sons. Yet that term cannot be employed to denote Them,
without considerable intellectual caution. As applied to men,
Person implies the antecedent conception of a species, which is
determined for the moment, and by the force of the expression,
into a single incommunicable modification of being d. But the
° Sum. Th. I*, qu. 29. a. 3. Waterland, Works, iii. 652. Importance of
Doctrine of H. Trin. c. 7. ' The sense of Scripture is Scripture.' Dr. Mill's
Letter on Dr. Hampden's Bampton Lectures, p. 14. See Lect. VIII.
p Lect. II. 1 Lect. III. ' Lect. IV.
■ Lect. V, VI. * Lect. VII. » Lect. VIII.
[ LECT.
Warnings and hopes. 43
It must be a ground of rejoicing that throughout these lec
tures we shall keep thus close to the Sacred Person of our Lord
Himself. And, if indeed, none of us as yet believed in His
Godhead, it might be an impertinence on the part of the preacher
to suggest any spiritual advice which takes for granted the
conclusion of his argument. But you who, thank God, are
Christians by living conviction as well as by baptismal privilege,
must already possess too strong and too clear a faith in the
truth before us, to be in any sense dependent on the success or
the failure of a feeble human effort to exhibit it. You at least
will endeavour, as we proceed, to bear steadily in mind, that He
of Whom we speak and think is no mere tale or portrait of the
ancient world, no dead abstraction of modern or of mediaeval
thought, but a living Being, Who is an observant witness alike
of the words spoken in His Name and of the mental and moral
response which they elicit. If we must needs pass in review the
erring thoughts and words of men, let us be sure that our final
object is not a criticism of error, but the clearer apprehension
and possession of truth. They who believe, may by reason of
the very loyalty and fervour of their devotion, so anxiously and
eagerly watch the fleeting, earth-born mists which for a moment
have threatened to veil the Face of the Sun of Righteousness, as
to forget that the true weal and safety of the soul is only assured
while her eye is persistently fixed on His imperishable glory.
They who have known the aching misery of earnest doubt, may
perchance be encouraged, like the once sceptical Apostle, to
probe the wounds with which from age to age error has lacerated
Christ's sacred form, and thus to draw from a nearer contact
with the Divine Bedeemer the springs of a fresh and deathless
faith, that shall win and own in Him to all eternity the
unclouded Presence of its Lord and God.
I]
LECTUEE II.
1 Gen i. 26.
m Cf. the references in Petavius, de Trinitate, ii. 7. 6.
n ' Non raro etiam veteres recentioresque interpretes, ut DTfra de angelis
intelligerent, theologicis potiua quara exegeticis argumentia permoti esse
videnter ; cf. . . . Gen. i. 26, 27, ex quo Samaritani cum Abenezra
hominem ad angelorum, non ad Dei, similitudinem creatum esse probant.'
Gesenius, Thesaur. in voc. D'rfrN, 2.
Ii] E
50 A Threefold Personality in God, suggested by
is become like One of Us °,' used with reference to the Fall, or
'Go to ; let Us go down and there confound their language P,'
uttered on the eve of the dispersion of Babel, it is clear that an
equality of rank is distinctly assumed between the Speaker and
Those Whom He is addressing. The only adequate alternative
to that interpretation of these texts which is furnished by the
Trinitarian doctrine, and which sees in them a preparation for
the disclosures of a later age, is the violent supposition of some
kind of pre-Mosaic Olympus, the many deities of which are upon
a level of strict equality with each other 1. But if this supposi
tion be admitted, how are we to account for the presence of such
language in the Pentateuch at all ] How can a people, con
fessedly religious and intelligent, such as were the Hebrews,
have thus stultified their whole religious history and literature,
by welcoming or retaining, in a document of the highest possible
authority, a nomenclature which contained so explicit a denial of
the first Article of the Hebrew Faith 1
The true sense of the comparatively indeterminate language
which occurs at the beginning of Genesis, is more fully explained
by the Priestly Blessing which we find to be prescribed for ritual
usage in the Book of Numbers11. This blessing is spoken of as a
putting the Name, of Gods, that is to say, a symbol unveiling
His Nature4, upon the children of Israel. Here then we dis
cover a distinct limit to the number of the Persons Who are
hinted at in' Genesis, as being internal to the Unity of God.
The Priest is to repeat the Most Holy Name Three times. The
Hebrew accentuation, whatever be its date, shews that the Jews
themselves saw in this repetition the declaration of a mystery in
the Divine Nature. Unless such a repetition had been designed
to secure the assertion of some important truth, a single mention
of the Sacred Name would have been more natural in a system,
the object of which was to impress belief in the Divine Unity
upon an entire people. This significant repetition, suggesting
0 Gen. iii. 22. 13QQ 1TTS3. LXX. Sis eh e'{ fipwv.
P Gen. xi. 7.
1 Klose, De polytheismi vestigiis apud Hebrseos ante Mosen, Gotting. 1830,
referred to by Kuhn, Dogmatik, Bd. ii. p. 10.
r Num. vi. 23-26. s Ibid. ver. 27.
4 ' Nach der biblischen Anschaming und inbesondere des A. T. ist iiberhaupt
der Zusammenhang zwischen Name und Sache ein sebr enger, und ein ganz
anderer als im modernen Bewusstein, wo sich der Name meist zu einem Moss
conventionellen Zeichen abgeschwacht hat ; der Name ist die Sache selbst,
sofern diese in die Erscheinung tritt und erkannt wird, der ins Wort gefasste
Ausdruck des Wesens.' KOnig, Theologie der Psalmen, p. 266.
[ LECT.
the Priestly Blessing and by the Vision ofIsaiah. 51
without distinctly asserting a Trinity in the Being of God, did
its work in the mind of Israel. It is impossible not to be struck
with the recurrence of the Threefold rhythm of prayer or praise,
again and again, in the Psalter". Again and again the poetical
parallelism is sacrificed to the practical and theological object of
making the sacred songs of Israel contain an exact acknowledg
ment of that inner law of God's Nature, which had been
shadowed out in the Pentateuch. And to omit traces of this
influence of the priestly blessing which are discoverable in Jere
miah and Ezekiel*, let us observe the crowning significance of
the vision of Isaiah y. In that adoration of the Most Holy
Three, Who yet are One2, by the veiled and mysterious Sera
phim; in that deep self-abasement and misery of the Prophet,
• who, though a man of unclean lips, had yet seen with his eyes
the King, the Lord of Hosts8; in that last enquiry on the part
of the Divine Speaker, the very terms of which reveal Him as
One and yet more than Oneb,—what a flood of almost Gospel
light0 is poured upon the intelligence of the elder Church ! If
we cannot altogether assert with the opponents of the Lutheran
Calixtus, that the doctrine of the Trinity is so clearly contained
in the Old Testament as to admit of being deduced from it with
out the aid of the Apostles and Evangelists; enough at least has
been said to shew that the Old Testament presents us with a
doctrine of the Divine Unity which is very far removed from
the hard and sterile Monotheism of the Koran. Within the
Uncreated and Unapproachable Essence, Israel could plainly
distinguish the shadows of a Truth which we Christians fully
express at this hour, when we 'acknowledge the glory of the
Eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty worship
the Unity.'
(#) From these adumbrations of Personal Distinctions within
the Being of God, we pass naturally to consider that series of
remarkable apparitions which are commonly known as the Theo-
phanies, and which form so prominent a feature in the early
history of the Old Testament Scriptures. When we are told
that God spoke to our fallen parents in Paradise*3, and appeared
■ Cf. Ps. xxix. 4, 5, and 7, 8 ; xcvi. I, 2, and J 8 ; cxv. 9, 10, 1 1 j cxviii.
2-4, and 10-12, and 15, 16.
1 On this subject, see Dr.Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of London, p. 131.
y Isaiah vi. 2-8. * Ibid. ver. 3. * Ibid. ver. 5.
b Ibid. ver. 8. 0 Heb. i. I.
a Gen. iii. 8 : ' They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the
garden in the cool of the day.'
Il] E 2
The Theophanies.
to Abram in his ninety-ninth year e, there is no distinct intima
tion of the mode of the Divine manifestation. But when 'Je
hovah appeared ' to the great Patriarch by the oak of Marjore*,
Abraham ' lift up his eyes and looked, and lo, Three Men stood
by him 8.' Abraham bows himself to the ground ; he offers
hospitality; he waits by his Visitors under the tree, and they
eath. One of the Three is the spokesman ; he appears to bear
the Sacred Name Jehovah1; he is seemingly distinguished from
the ' two angels ' who went first to Sodomi ; he promises that
the aged Sarah shall have a son, and that ' all the nations of the
earth shall be blessed in Abraham k.' With him Abraham
intercedes for Sodom1; by him judgment is afterwards executed
upon the guilty city. When it is said that ' Jehovah rained
upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah
out of heaven m,' a sharp distinction is established between a
visible and an Invisible Person, each bearing the Most Holy
Name. This distinction introduces us to the Mosaic and later
representations of that very exalted and mysterious being, the
mm i«bo or Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is cer
tainly distinguished from Jehovah ; yet the names by which he
is called, the powers which he assumes to wield, the honour
which is paid to him, shew that in him there was at least a
special Presence of God. He seems to speak sometimes in his
own name, and sometimes as if he were not a created person
ality, but only a veil or organ of the Higher Nature That spoke
and acted through him. Thus he assures Hagar, as if speaking
in the character of an ambassador from God, that ' the Lord had
heard her affliction11.' Yet he promises her, ' I will multiply thy
seed exceedingly0,' and she in return ' called the Name of the
Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest meP.' He arrests
Abraham's arm, when the Patriarch is on the point of carrying
out God's bidding by offering Isaac as a sacrifice0. ; yet he asso
ciates himself with Him from Whom 'Abraham had not with
held his son, his only son.' He accepts for himself Abraham's
obedience as rendered to God, and he subsequently at a second
appearance adds the promise, ' In thy seed shall all the nations of
"Gen. xvii. 1-3: 'The Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I
am the Almighty God. . . And Abram fell on his face: and God talked
with him.' ' Ibid, xviii. 1.
s Ibid. ver. 2. •> Ibid. ver. 8. 1 Ibid. ver. 17.
J Compare Gen. xviii. 22 and xix. I. LXX. Jj\8ov Si o't Svo ayyehoi.
k Gen. xviii. 10, 18. 1 Ibid. vers. 23-33. m ^D'^- xlx- 34-
" Ibid. xvi. 11. o Ibid. ver. 10. P Ibid. ver. 13.
« Ibid. xxii. 11, 12.
[lect.
The Theophanies. S3
the earth be blessed ; because thou hast obeyed My voice1-.' He
appears to Jacob in a dream, he announces himself as ' the God
of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou
vowedst a vow unto Me8.' Thus he was ' the Lord ' who in
Jacob's vision at Bethel had stood above the ladder and said, ' I
am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac1.'
He was, as it seems, the Chief of that angel-host whom Jacob
met at Mahanaimu ; with him Jacob wrestled for a blessing at
Peniel ; of him Jacob says, ' I have seen God face to face, and
my life is preserved.' When blessing the sons of Joseph, the
dying Patriarch invokes not only ' the God Which fed me all my
life long unto this day,' but also ' the Angel which redeemed me
from all evil*.' In the desert of Midian, the Angel of the Lord
appears to Moses ' in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.'
The bush remains miraculously unconsumedy. 'Jehovah' sees
that Moses turns aside to see, and ' Elohim ' calls to Moses out
of the midst of the bush z. The very ground on which Moses
stands is holy ; and the Lawgiver hides his face, ' for he was
afraid to look upon Goda.' The Speaker from the midst of the
bush announces Himself as the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob a. His are the Mercy, the Wisdom,
the Providence, the Power, the Authority of the Most High13 ;
nay, all the Divine attributes". When the children of Israel are
making their escape from Egypt, the Angel of the Lord leads
them ; in the hour of danger he places himself between the camp
of Israel and the host of Pharaoh d. How deeply Israel felt the
value of his protecting care, we may learn from the terms of the
message to the King of Edome. God promises that the Angel
shall keep Israel in the way, and bring the people to Canaan f ;
his presence is a guarantee that the Amorites and other idola
trous races shall be cut off e. Israel is to obey this Angel, and
to provoke him not ; for the Holy ' Name is in him V Even
after the sin of the Golden Calf, the promised guardianship of
the Angel is not forfeited ; while a distinction is clearly drawn
between the Angel and Jehovah Himself'. Yet the Angel is
r Gen. xxii. 18. ■ Ibid. xxxi. n, 13. * Ibid, xxviii. 13.
u Ibid, xxxii. I. * Ibid, xlviii. 15, 16. t Exod. iii. I, 2.
■ Ibid. ver. 4. a Ibid. ver. 6. b Ibid. vers. 7-14.
0 Ibid. vers. 14-16. 4 Exod. xiv. 19. e Num. xx. 16.
' Exod. xxiii. 20 ; compare xxxii. 34.
K Ibid, xxiii. 23 ; cf. Joshua v. 13-15.
h Exod. xxiii. 21, imps 'DID O.
1 Ibid, xxxiii. 2, 3 : 'I will send an angel before thee . . . for I will not
go up in the midst of thee ; for thou art a stiff-necked people.'
n]
54 The Theophanies.
expressly called the Angel of God's Presence1*; he fully represents
God. God must in some way have been present in him. No
merely created being, speaking and acting in his own right,
could have spoken to men, or have allowed men to act towards
himself, as did the Angel of the Lord. Thus he withstands
Balaam, on his faithless errand, and bids him go with the mes
sengers of Balak ; but adds, ' Only the word that I shall speak
unto thee, that thou shalt speak.' As ' Captain of the host of
the Lord,' he appears to Joshua in the plain of Jericho. Joshua
worships God in him 1 ; and the Angel asks of the conqueror of
Canaan the same tokens of reverence as had been exacted from
Moses m. Besides the reference in the Song of Deborah^ to the
curse pronounced against Meroz by the Angel of the Lord, the
Book of Judges contains accounts of three appearances, in each
of which we are scarcely sensible of the action of a created per
sonality, so completely is the language and bearing that of the
Higher Nature present in the Angel. At Bochim he expostu
lates with the assembled people for their breach of the covenant
in failing to exterminate the Canaanites. God speaks by him as
in His own Name ; He refers to the covenant which He had
made with Israel, and to His bringing the people out of Egypt ;
He declares that, on account of their disobedience He will not
drive the heathen nations out of the land °. In the account of his
appearance to Gideon, the Angel is called sometimes the Angel
of the Lord, sometimes the Lord, or Jehovah. He bids Gideon
attack the Midianite oppressors of Israel, and adds the promise,
'I will be with thee.' Gideon places an offering before the
Angel, that he may, if he wills, manifest his character by some
sign. The Angel touches the offering with the end of his staff,
whereupon fire rises up out of the rock and consumes the offering.
The Angel disappears, and Gideon fears that he will die because
he has seen ' the Angel of the Lord face to face P.' When the
wife of Manoah is reporting the Angel's first appearance to
herself, she says that ' A man of God came ' to her, ' and his
countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God, very
terrible.' She thus speaks of the Angel as of a Being already
k Exod. xxxiii. 14 ; compare Isaiah lxiii. 9.
1 In Josh. vi. 1 the captain of the Lord's Host (cf. ch. v. 14) appears to
be called Jehovah. But cf. Mill, Myth. Int. p. 354.
m Josh. v. 13-15 ; Exod. iii. 5 ; compare Exod. xxiii. 23.
» Judges v. 23. 0 Ibid. ii. 1-5. See Keil, Comm. in loc.
p Judg. vi. 11-22. Keil, Comm. in loc. See Hengstenberg, Christol.
0. Test., vol. iv. append, iii. p. 292.
[ LECT.
Who was the 'Angel of the Lord? ' 55
known to Israel. At his second appearance the Angel bids
Manoah, who ' knew not that he was an Angel of the Lord,' and
offered him common food, to offer sacrifice unto the Lord. The
Angel refuses to disclose his Name, which is ' wonderful
When Manoah offers a kid with a meat-offering upon a rock
unto the Lord, the Angel mounts visibly up to heaven in the
flame of the sacrifice. Like Gideon, Manoah fears death after
such near contact with so exalted a Being of the other world.
' We shall surely die,' he exclaims to his wife, ' because we have
seen God1.'
But you ask, Who was this Angel 1 The Jewish interpreters
vary in their explanations B. The earliest Fathers answer with
general unanimity that he was the Word or Son of God Himself.
For example, in the Dialogue with Trypho, St. Justin proves
against his Jewish opponent, that God did not appear to Abra
ham by the oak of Mamre, be/ore the appearance of the ' three
men,' but that He was One of the Three Trypho admits this,
but he objects that it did not prove that there was any God
besides Him Who had appeared to the Patriarchs. Justin re
plies that a • Divine Being, personally although not substantially
distinct from the supreme God, is clearly implied in the state
ment that 'the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah,
brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven u.' Trypho
yields the point. Here it is plain that St. Justin did not sup
pose that a created being was called God on account of his
mission ; St. Justin believes that One Who was of the substance
of God appeared to Abraham *. Again, the Fathers of the first
Synod at Antioch, in the letter which was sent to Paulus of
Samosata before his deposition, state that the 'Angel of the
y This gloss of the LXX. in Is. ix. 6 was a main ground of the early
Patristic application of the title of the Angel to God the Son. ' Although
Malachi foretells our Lord's coming in the Flesh under the titles of " the
Lord," "the Angel," or "Messenger of the Covenant," (chap. iii. 1) there is
no proof that He is anywhere spoken of absolutely as " the Angel," or that
His Divine Nature is so entitled.' Dr. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, p. 516,
note 1.
1 Mansi, Cone, i. p. 1035.
0 Compare however St. Irenaeus adv. Her. iv. 7. § 4 ; Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7 ;
Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 31 ; Constit. Apostol. v. 20; Tertullian. adv. Prax.
cap. 13, 14, and 15 ; St. Cyprian, adv. Judaeos, ii. c. 5, 6; St. Cyr. Hieros.
Catech. 10 ; St. Hil. de Trin. lib. 4 and 5 ; St. Chrysost. Horn, in Genes. 42, 48 ;
Theodoret, Interr. v. in Exod. (Op. i. p. 121), on Exod. iii. 2. Cf. some
additional authorities given by P. Vandenbroeck, De Theophaniis, sub Vet.
Testamento, p. 17, sqq ; Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. lib. L c. I.
1 e.g. cf. Tertullian. adv. Marc. ii. c. 27.
" St. Aug. Serm. vii. n. 4. The Arian criticism ran thus: 'Filius visus est
patribus, Pater non est visus: invisibilis autem et visibilis diversa natura est.'
d St. John i. 18, &c.
" ' Ipsa enim natura vel substantia vel essentia, vel quolibet alio nomine
appellandum est id ipsum, quod Deus est, quidquid illud est corporcUiter videri
non potest.' De Trin. ii. c. 18, n. 35. The Scotists, who opposed the general
Thomist doctrine to the effect that a created angel was the instrument of the
Theophanies, carefully guarded against the ideas that the substance of God
could be seen by man in the body, or that the bodily form which they be
lieved to have been assumed was personally united to the Eternal Word,
since this was peculiar to the Divine Incarnation. (Scotus in lib. ii. sent.
[ LECT.
kow modified by St. Augustine. 57
therefore, as being truly God, was by nature as invisible as the
Father. If the Son appeared to the Patriarchs, He appeared
through the intermediate agency of a created being, who repre
sented Him, and through whom He spoke and actedf. If the
Angel who represented Him spoke and acted with a' Divine
authority, and received Divine honours, we are referred to the
force of the general law whereby, in things earthly and heavenly,
an ambassador is temporarily put in the place of the Master who
accredits himS. But Augustine further warns us against at
tempting to say positively, Which of the Divine Persons mani
fested Himself, in this or that instance, to Patriarchs or Prophets,
except where some remarkable indications determine our con
clusion very decisively11. The general doctrine of this great
teacher, that the Theophanies were not direct appearances of a
Person in the Godhead, but Self-manifestations of God through
a created being, had been hinted at by some earlier Fathers',
diet. 8.) Scotus explains that the being who assumes a bodily form, need
only be ' intrinsecus motor corporis ; nam tunc assumit, id est ad se sumit,
quia ad operationes proprias sibi explendas ntitur illo sicut instrumento.'
(Ibid. Scholion i.)
' ' Proinde ilia omnia, qua? Patribus visa sunt, cum Deus illis secundum
suam dispensationem temporibus congruam prsesentaretur, per creaturam
facta esse, manifestum est Sed jam satis quantum existimo . . .
demonstratum est, . . . quod antiquis patribus nostris ante Incarnationem
Salvatoris, cum Deus apparere dicebatur, voces illse ac species corporales per
angelos facta? sunt, sive ipsis loquentibus vel agentibus aliquid ex person^
Dei, sicut etiam prophetas solere ostendimus, sive assumentibus ex creaturd
quod ipsi non essent, ubi Deus figurate demonstraretur hominibus ; quod
genus significationum nec Prophetas omisisse, multis exemplis docet Scrip
ture.' DeTrin.iii. II, n. 22, 27.
8 ' Sed ait aliquis : cur ergo Scriptum est, Dixit Dominus ad Moysen ; et
non potius, Dixit angelus ad Moysen ? Quia cum verba judicis prceco pro-
nuntiat, non scribitur in Gestis, ille prseco dixit ; sed ille judex ; sic etiam
loquente prophets sancto, etsi dicamus Propheta dixit, nihil aliud quam
Dominum dixisse intelligi volumus. Et si dicamus, Dominus dixit ; pro-
phetam non subtrahimus, sed quis per eum dixerit admonemus.' De Trin. iii.
c. 11, n. 23.
h ' Nihil aliud, quantum existimo, divinorum sacramentorum modesta et
cauta consideratio persuadet, nisi ut temere non dicamus, Quaenam ex Trini-
tate Persona cuilibet Patrum et Prophetarum in aliquo corpore vel simili-
tudine corporis apparuerit, nisi cum continentia lectionis aliqua probabilia
circumponit indicia. . . . Per subjectam creaturam non solum Filium vel
Spiritum Sanctum, sed etiam Patrem corporali specie sive similitudine mor-
talibus sensibus significationem Sui dare potuisse credendum est.' De Trin. ii.
c. 18, n. 35.
1 Compare St. Irena?us adv. Haer. iv. 20, n. 7 and 24. ' Verbum naturaliter
quidem invisibile, palpabile in hominibus factum.' Origen (Horn. xvi. in
Jerem.) speaking of the vision in Exod. iii. says, ' God was here beheld in the
Angel.'
n]
58 Significance of the Theophanies.
and was insisted on by contemporary and later writers of the
highest authority K This explanation has since become the
predominant although by no means the exclusive judgment of
the Church 1 ; and if it is not unaccompanied by considerable
difficulties when we apply it to the sacred text, it certainly
seems to relieve us of greater embarrassments than any which it
creates m.
But whether the ante-Nicene (so to term it) or the Augustinian
line of interpretation be adopted with respect to the Theophanies,
no sincere believer in the historical trustworthiness of Holy
Scripture can mistake the importance of their relation to the
doctrine of our Lord's Divinity. If the Theophanies were not,
as has been pretended, mythical legends, the natural product of
the Jewish mind at a particular stage of its development, but
actual matter-of-fact occurrences in the history of ancient Israel,
must we not see in them a deep Providential meaning ] Whether
in them the Word or Son actually appeared, or whether God
made a created angel the absolutely perfect exponent of His
Thought and Will, do they not point in either case to a purpose
in the Divine Mind which would only be realized when man had
been admitted to a nearer and more palpable contact with God
than was possible under the Patriarchal or Jewish dispensations ?
Do they not suggest, as their natural climax and explanation,
some Personal Self-unveiling of God before the eyes of His
creatures 1 Would not God appear to have been training His
people, by this long and mysterious series of communications, at
length to recognise and to worship Him when hidden under, and
indissolubly one with a created nature 1 Apart from the specific
circumstances which may seem to have explained each Theophany
at the time of its taking place, and considering them as a series
of phenomena, is there any other account of them so much in
k St. Jerome (ed. Vail.) in Galat. iii. 19: 'Quod in omni Veteri Testa-
mento ubi angelus primum visus refertur et postea quasi Deus loquena
inducitur, angelus quidem vere ex ministris pluribus quicunque est visus, sed
in illo Mediator loquatur, Qui dicit; Ego sum Deus Abraham, etc. Nec
mirum si Deus loquatur in angelis, cum etiam per angelos, qui in hominibus
sunt, loquatur Deus in prophetis, dicente Zaccharia' : et ait angelus, qui
loquebatur in me, ac deinceps inferente ; hsec dicit Deus Omnipotens.' Cf.
St. Greg. Magn. Mag. Moral, xxviii. 2 ; St. Athan. Or. iii. c. Arian. § 14.
1 The earlier interpretation has been more generally advocated by English
divines. P. Vandenbroeck's treatise already referred to shews that it still has
adherents in other parts of the Western Church.
m See especially Dr. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, p. 515, note 20 ; p. 516,
sqq.
[lect.
Doctrine of the Kochmah or Wisdom. 59
harmony with the general scope of Holy Scripture, as that they
were successive lessons addressed to the eye and to the ear of
ancient piety, in anticipation of a coming Incarnation of
God?
(y) This preparatory service, if we may venture so to term it,
which had been rendered to the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity
by the Theophanies in the world of sense, was seconded by the
upgrowth and development of a belief respecting the Divine
Kochmah or Wisdom in the region of inspired ideas.
1. The ' Wisdom ' of the Jewish Scriptures is certainly more
than a human endowment11, and even, as it would seem, more
than an Attribute of God. It may naturally remind us of the
Archetypal Ideas of Plato, but the resemblance is scarcely more
than superficial. The ' Wisdom ' is hinted at in the Book of
Job. In a well-known passage of majestic beauty, Job replies to
his own question, Where shall the Wisdom ° be found t He re
presents Wisdom as it exists in God, and as it is communicated in
the highest form to man. In God, ' the Wisdom ' is that Eternal
Thought, in which the Divine Architect ever beheld His future
creation p. In man, Wisdom is seen in moral growth ; it is ' the
fear of the Lord,' and ' to depart from evil 1.' The Wisdom is
here only revealed as underlying, on the one side, the laws of the
physical universe, on the other, those of man's moral nature.
Certainly as yet, 'Wisdom' is not in any way represented as
personal ; but we make a great step in passing to the Book of
Proverbs. In the Book of Proverbs the Wisdom is co-eternal
with Jehovah ; Wisdom assists Him in the work of Creation ;
Wisdom reigns, as one specially honoured, in the palace of the
King of Heaven ; Wisdom is the adequate object of the eternal
joy of God; God possesses Wisdom, Wisdom delights in God.
n The word fiMn is, of course, used in this lower sense. It is applied to
an inspired skill in making priestly vestments (Exod. xxviii. 3), or sacred
furniture generally (Ibid. xxxi. 6 and xxxvi. 1, 2); to fidelity to known truth
(Deut. iv. 6 ; cf. xxxii. 6) ; to great intellectual accomplishments (Dan. i. 17).
Solomon was typically can s his ' Wisdom ' was exhibited in moral pene
tration and judgment (1 Kings iii. 28, x. 4, sqq.) ; in the knowledge of many
subjects, specially of the works of God in the natural world (Ibid. iv. 33, 34);
in the knowledge of various poems and maxims, which he had either composed
or which he remembered (Ibid. iv. 32 ; Prov. i. 1). Wisdom, as communi
cated to men, included sometimes supernatural powers (Dan. v. 11), but
specially moral virtue (Ps. xxxvii. 30, li. 6 ; Prov. x. 31) ; and piety to God
( Ps. cxi. 10). In God rrasnn is higher than any of these ; He alone originally
possesses It (Job xii. 12, 13, xxviii. 12, sqq.).
0 Job xxviii. 12. rraann. p Ibid. vers. 23-27. » Ibid. ver. 28.
n]
60 The ' Wisdom ' in the Hebrew Scriptures,
' Jehovah (says Wisdom) possessed Me in the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I was set up from everlasting,
From the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth ;
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills was I brought forth :
While as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields,
Nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
When He prepared the heavens, I was there :
When He set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When He established the clouds above :
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep :
When He gave to the sea His decree,
That the waters should not pass His commandment :
When He appointed the foundations of the earth :
Then I was by Him, as One brought up with Him :
And I was daily His Delight, rejoicing always before Him ;
Rejoicing in the habitable part of His earth ;
And My delights were with the sons of men '.'
Are we listening to the language of a real Person or only of a
poetic personification t A group of critics defends each hypo
thesis ; and those who maintain the latter, point to the picture
of Folly in the succeeding chapter6. But may not a study of
that picture lead to a very opposite conclusion ? Folly is there
no mere abstraction, she is a sinful woman of impure life, ' whose
guests are in the depths of hell.' The work of Folly is the very
work of the Evil One, the real antagonist of the Divine Koch-
mah. Folly is the principle of absolute Unwisdom, of consum
mate moral Evil. Folly, by the force of the antithesis, enhances
our impression that ' the Wisdom ' is personal. The Arians
understood the word ' which is rendered ' possessed ' in our Eng
lish Bible, to mean ' created,' and they thus degraded the Wisdom
to the level of a creature. But they did not doubt that this
created Wisdom was a real being or person n. Modern critics
wise living is the slave of Wisdom or Science ; rroipla is irurrfinri Belav xat
avSpuit'omv koX -rdv rovrav alrtup (Cong. Qn. Erud. Grat. § 14, ed. Mangey,
torn. i. p. 530). Philo explains Exod. xxiv. 6 allegoricdlly, as the basis of a
distinction between Wisdom as it exists in men and in God, rb Qciov yivos
aiuyis koI ixparov (Quis Rer. Div. Hser. § 38, i. p. 498). Wisdom is the
mother of the world (Quod Det. Potiori Insid. § 16, i. p. 202); her wealth
is without limits, she is like a deep well, a perennial fountain, &c. But Philo
does not in any case seem to personify Wisdom ; his doctrine of Wisdom is
eclipsed by thatof the Logos.
* Vacherot (Ecole d'Alexandrie, vol. i. p. 134, Introd.) says of Wisdom
and Ecclesiasticus : ' Ces monumens renferment peu de traces des idees
Grecques dont ils semblent avoir pre'ce'de' l'invasion en Orient.' Ecclesiasticus
was written in Hebrew under the High-Priesthood of Simon I, B.C. 303-284,
by Jesus the Son of Sirach, and translated into Greek by his grandson, who
came to reside at Alexandria under Ptolemy Euergetes.
■ Plat. Philebus, p. 30. 'There is not,' says Professor Mansel, 'the
slightest evidence that the Divine Reason was represented by Plato as having
a distinct personality, or as being anything more than an attribute of the
Divine Mind.' Cf. art. Philosophy, in Kitto's Cycl. of BibL Literature,
new ed.
[ LECT.
Relation of Pkilo's Logos to his theosophy. 65
are impressed upon concrete forms of existence11. The Ideas of
Philo are energizing powers or causes whereby God carries out
His plan of creation0. Of these energetic forces, the Logos, ac
cording to Philo, is the compendium, the concentration. Philo's
Logos is a necessary complement of his philosophical doctrine
concerning God. Philo indeed, as the devout Jew, believes iii
God as a Personal Being Who has constant and certain dealings
with mankind ; Philo, in his Greek moods, conceives of God not
merely as a single simple Essence, but as beyond personality,
beyond any definite form of existence, infinitely distant from all
relations to created life, incapable of any contact even with a
spiritual creation, subtilized into an abstraction altogether trans
cending the most abstract conceptions of impersonal being. It
might even seem as if Philo had chosen for his master, not Plato
the theologian of the Timseus, but Plato the pure dialectician of
the Republic. But how is such an abstract God as this to be
also the Creator and the Providence of the Hebrew Bible t Cer
tainly, accordingjfco Philo, matter existed before creation*1 ; but
how did God mould matter into created forms of life 1 This,
Philo will reply, was the work of the Logos, that is to say, of
the ideas collectively. The Philonian Logos is the Idea of
ideas6; he is the shadow of God by. which as by an instrument
He made the worlds f; he is himself the intelligible or Ideal
World, the Archetypal Type of all creations. The Logos of
Philo is the most ancient and most general of created things11 ;
1 De Conf. Ling. § 28, i. 427. * Although,' says Philo, 'we are not in a
position to be considered the Sons of God, yet we may be the children T7ji
cuMov thcivos avrov, \6yov tov Upayrarov.
k De Plantat. § 2, I. 331 : fcaphv yap avrbv &fifa/troy tov iravrbs 6 ysvvti-
ffas iiroUt Trariip.
1 De Mundo, § 2, ii. p. 604 : to dxvpaWaTov Kal &€0at6raTov epcur/xa twv
Z\uv forty. Qinos airb twv fi€ffwv inl to nepaTa Kal airb twv &Kpaiv els jueVa
raftely 5o\ix*v*l tov Trjs tpvtrews Spo/iov aJiTTiyrov, avvdywv Ttdvra to ficpi] Kal
trtplyywv.
m Quis Rer. Dhr. Hser. § 42, i. p. 501 : rol 8c apxayye\a> kbX TtptoRvraTw
\6ycf Swptav e£a£peTov ^Swkcv & to 8Xa yevrt\<ras warty, Iva peddpios eras rb
yev6fjc.evov SiaKpivri tov irevotyjKSros.
n Ibid. : 6 5* avrbs ik€tijs jueV eart tov Bvtjtov taipaivoiTos del npbs Tb
&(p6apTov, irpeffjSuT^s 5e tov Tyyeu.6vos irpbs rb vni)Koov. Cf. De Somniis, § 37,
i. 653; De Migr. Abraham. § 18, i. 452. De Gigant. § 11 : <S ipxieptiis
\6yos.
0 Legis Allegor. iii. § 73, i. 128 : ovros [sc. 6 \6yos~] yap fin&y twv irtXap
av fty) 9ebst twv 8e tro<pwv Kal TcKelwv, 6 npwros, i. e. God Himself. Cf. § 32
and § 33, i. 107.
P Legis Allegor. iii. § 59, i. 120 : *Op£s ttjs tyvxvs Tpotfav ota tart; A6yos
0eoE o-vvexhs, io'Kws bpiaw. Cf. also § 62. De Somniis, § 37, i. 691 : t$
yap fori tov Bt'iov \6yov ^vfir\ o-vvtxbs M€^* op/iTjs Kal rafews Qepofievrj, iravra
bia irdvrwv avax*iTai Kal zxxppaivet.
1 De Conf. Ling. § 28, i. 427 : k$v futfihrm fievroi rvyxdvrj tis a£i6xpews
av vlbs Qcov irpoffayopeveffdai, <rTOvb*a£tTw KOffUtiadai Kara rbv irpwr6yovov ou-
rov A6yov, rbv &yye\ov irptafivTaTOV us apxdyyehov noKvwvv/xov intdpxovra.
r De Conf. Ling. § 14, i. 4 14: toStoi' fiev yip irptaBiraTov vibv i ray
ovrwv avfTtite Uarty, ov crepwdt irpwriyovov clWjuacre.
[ LECT.
Philds indecision. 67
lessly at issue. Philo's whole system and drift of thought must
have inclined him to personify the Logos; but was the personified
Logos to be a second God, or was he to be nothing more than a
created angel 1 If the latter, then he would lose all those lofty
prerogatives and characteristics, which, platonically speaking, as
well as for the purposes of mediation and creation, were so en
tirely essential to him. If the former, then Philo must break
with the very first article of the Mosaic creed; he must renounce
his Monotheism. Confronted with this difficulty, the Alexandrian
wavers in piteous indecision ; he really recoils before it. In one
passage indeed he even goes so far as to call the Logos a ' second
God8,' and he is accordingly ranked by Petavius among the
forerunners of Arius. But on the whole he appears to fall back
upon a position which, however fatal to the completeness of his
system, yet has the recommendation of relieving him from an
overwhelming difficulty. After all that he has said, his Logos is
really resolved into a mere group of Divine ideas, into a purely
impersonal quality included in the Divine Being'. That advance
s Fragment quoted from Euseb. Prsep. Evang. lib. vii. c. 13 in Phil. Oper.
ii. 625 : 6yvrbv y&p ovShv aweiKoviffSiivai vpbs rbv avayrdTu ical irarepa rSov
SAw? iiibvaTOy a\\ct irpbs rbv Sevrepov 6tbv, &s loriv iicelvov A6yos. But the
Logos is called 6e6s only iv KaTaxpi]<Tci. Op. i. 655.
* That Philo's Logos is not a distinct Person is maintained by Dorner,
Person Christi, Einleitung, p. 23, note i. 44, sqq. note 40 ; by Dollinger,
Heid. und Judenthum, bk. x. p. iii. § 5 ; and by Burton, Bampton Lectures,
note 93. The opposite opinion is that of Gfrbrer (see his Philo und die
Judisch-Alexandrinische Theologie), and of Lucke (see Professor Mansel, in
Kitto's Encycl., art. Philosophy, p. 526, note). Professor Jowett, at one
time, following Gfrbrer, appears to find in Philo 'the complete personification
of the Logos,' although he also admits that Philo's idea of the Logos ' leaves
us in doubt at last whether it is not a quality only, or mode of operation in
the Divine Being.' (Ep. of St. Paul, i. p. 510, 2nd ed.) He hesitates in
deed to decide the question, on the ground that 'the word "person" has now
a distinctness and unity which belongs not to that age.' (p. 485.) Surely the
idea (at any rate) of personality, whether distinctly analyzed or no, is a
primary element of all human thought. It is due to Professor Jowett to call
attention to the extent (would that it were wider and more radical !) to which
he disavows Gfrb'rer's conclusions. (Ibid. p. 454, note.) And I quote the
following words with sincere pleasure : ' The object of the Gospel is real,
present, substantial,—an object such as men may see with their eyes and
hold in their hands. . . . But in Philo the object is shadowy, distant, indis
tinct ; whether an idea or a fact we scarcely know. . . . Were we to come
nearer to it, it would vanish away.' (Ibid. p. 413, 1st ed. ; p. 509, 2nd ed.,
in which there are a few variations.) A study of the passages referred to in
Mangey's index will, it is believed, convince any unprejudiced reader that
Philo did not know his own mind ; that his Logos was sometimes impersonal
and sometimes not, or that he sometimes thought of a personal Logos, and
never believed in one.
Ii] F 2
68 Philo and the New Testament.
toward the recognition of a real Hypostasis,— so steady, as it
seemed, so promising, so fruitful,—is but a play upon language,
or an intellectual field-sport, or at best, the effort which precedes
or the mask which covers a speculative failure. We were
tempted perchance for a moment to believe that we were listen
ing to the master from whom Apostles were presently to draw
their inspirations ; but, in truth, we have before us in Philo
Judseus only a thoughtful, not insincere, but half-heathenized
believer in the Revelation of Sinai, groping in a twilight which
he has made darker by his Hellenic tastes, after a truth which
was only to be disclosed in its fulness by another Revelation, the
Revelation of Pentecost.
This hesitation as to the capital question of the Personality of
the Logos, would alone suffice to establish a fundamental dif
ference between the vacillating, tentative speculation of the
Alexandrian,, and the clear, compact, majestic doctrine concern
ing our Lord's Pre-existent Godhead, which meets us under a
somewhat similar phraseological form11 in the pages of the New
Testament. When it is assumed that the Logos of St. John is
but a reproduction of the Logos of Philo the Jew, this assump
tion overlooks fundamental discrepancies of thought, and rests
its case upon occasional coincidences of language v. For besides
the contrast between the abstract ideal Logos of Philo, and the
concrete Personal Logos of the fourth Evangelist, which has
already been noticed, there are even deeper differences, which
would have made it impossible that an Apostle should have sat
in spirit as a pupil at the feet of the Alexandrian, or that he
should have allowed himself to breathe the same general re
ligious atmosphere. Philo is everywhere too little alive to the
presence and to the consequences of moral evilw. The history
11 On the general question of the phraseological coincidences between Philo
and the writers in the New Testament, see the passages quoted in Professor
Mansel's article 'Philosophy' (Kitto's Encycl.), already referred to. I could
sincerely wish that I had had the advantage of reading that article before
writing the text of these pages.
v ' Gfrorer,' Professor Jowett admits, 'has exaggerated the resemblances
between Philo and the New Testament, making them, I think, more real and
less verbal than they are in fact.' (Ep. of St. Paul, i. 454, note.) ' II est
douteux,' says M. E. Vacherot, ' que Saint Jean, qui n'a jamais visits
Alexandrie, ait connu les livres du philosophe juif.' Histoire Critique de
l'ecole d'Alexandrie, i. p. 201. And the limited circulation of the writings of
the theosophical Alexandrians would appear from the fact that Philo himself
appears never to have read those of his master Aristobulus. Cf. Valkenaer,
de Aristobulo, p. 95.
w See the remarks of M. E. de Pressense, Jesus-Christ, p. 112.
[ LECT.
Contrasts between Philo and the Gospel. 69
of Israel, instead of displaying a long, earnest struggle between
the Goodness of God and the wickedness of men, interests Philo
only as a complex allegory, which, by a versatile exposition,
may be made to illustrate various ontological problems. The
priesthood, and the sacrificial system, instead of pointing to
man's profound need of pardon and expiation, are resolved by
him into the symbols of certain cosmical facts or theosophic
theories. Philo therefore scarcely hints at the Messiah, al
though he says much concerning Jewish expectations of a
brighter future ; he knows no means of reconciliation, of re
demption ; he sees not the need of them. According to Philo,
salvation is to be worked out by a perpetual speculation upon
the eternal order of things ; and asceticism is of value in assist
ing man to ascend into an ecstatic philosophical reverie. The
profound opposition between such a view of man's moral state,
and that stern appeal to the humbling realities of human life
which is inseparable from the teaching of Christ and His
Apostles, would alone have made it improbable that the writers
of the New Testament are under serious intellectual obligations
to Philo. Unless the preaching which could rouse the con
science to a keen agonizing sense of guilt is in harmony with a
lassitude which ignores the moral misery that is in the world ;
unless the proclamation of an Atoning Victim crucified for the
sins of men be reconcilable with an indifference to the existence
of any true expiation for sin whatever ; it will not be easy to
believe that Philo is the real author of the creed of Christendom.
And this moral discrepancy does but tally with a like doctrinal
antagonism. According to Philo, the Divinity cannot touch that
which is material : how can Philo then have been the teacher of
an Apostle whose whole teaching expands the truth that the
Word, Himself essentially Divine, was made flesh and dwelt
among us *i Philo's real spiritual progeny must be sought else
where. Philo's method of interpretation may have passed into
the Church ; he is quoted by Clement and by Origen, often and
respectfully. Yet Philo's doctrine, it has been well observed, if
naturally developed, would have led to Docetism rather than to
Christianity* ; and we trace its influence in forms of theosophic
Gnosticism, which only agree in substituting the wildest licence
of the metaphysical fancy, for simple submission to that historical
fact of the Incarnation of God, which is the basis of the Gospel.
But if Philo was not St. John's master, it is probable that his
' Compare Dorner, Person Christi, Einleit. p. 59, on the Adam Kadmon,
and p. 60, on the Memra, Shekinah, and Metatron. ' Zu der Idee einer
Incarnation des wirklich Gtittlichen aber haben es alle diese Theologumene
insgesammt nie gebracht.' They only involve a parastatic appearance of
God, are symbols of His Presence, and are altogether impersonal ; or if per
sonal (as the Metatron), they are clearly conceived of as created personalities.
This helps to explain the fact that during the first three centuries the main
[ LECT.
Relevancy of theforegoing considerations. 71
' Providence,' says the accurate Neander, ' had so ordered it, that
in the intellectual world in which Christianity made its first
appearance, many ideas should be in circulation, which at least
seemed to be closely related to it, and in which Christianity could
find a point of connection with external thought, on which to
base the doctrine of a God revealed in Christ2.' Of these ideas
we may well believe that the most generally diffused and the
most instrumental was the Logos of Alexandria, if not the' exact
Logos of Philo.
It is possible that such considerations as some of the fore
going, when viewed relatively to the great and vital doctrine
which is before us in these lectures, may be objected to on the
score of being ' fanciful.' Nor am I insensible, my brethren, to
the severity of such a condemnation when awarded by the
practical intelligence of Englishmen. Still it is possible that
such a criticism would betoken on the part of those who make
it some lack of wise and generous thought. 'Fanciful,' after
all, is a relative term ; what is solid in one field of study may
seem fanciful in another. Before we condemn a particular line
of thought as ' fanciful,' we do well to enquire whether a pene
tration, a subtlety, a versatility, I might add, a spirituality of
intelligence, greater than our own, might not convict the con
demnation itself of an opposite demerit, which need not be more
particularly described. Especially in sacred literature the im
putation of fancifulness is a rash one ; since a sacred subject-
matter is not likely, b, priori, to be fairly amenable to the
coarser tests and narrower views of a secular judgment. . It
may be that the review of those adumbrations of the doctrine
of our Lord's Divinity, in which we have been engaged, is rather
calculated to reassure a believer than to convince a sceptic.
Christ's Divinity illuminates the Hebrew Scriptures, but to read
them as a whole by this light we must already have recognised
the truth from which it radiates. Yet it would be an error to
suppose that the Old Testament has no relations of a more
independent character to the doctrine of Christ's Godhead. The
Old Testament witnesses to the existence of a great national
belief, the importance of which cannot be ignored by any man
who would do justice to the history of human thought. And
we proceed to ask whether that belief has any, and what, bearing
upon the faith of Catholic Christendom as to the Person of her
Lord.
attacks on our Lord's Godhead were of Jewish origin. Cf. Dorner, ubi sup.
note 14. 1 Kirchen Geschichte, i. 3, p. 989.
11 ]
73 Hope in a Ftihcre, essential
II. There is then one element, or condition of national life,
with which no nation can dispense. A nation must have its eye
upon a future, more or less denned, hut fairly within the appa
rent scope of its grasp. Hope is the soul of moral vitality ; and
any man, or society of men, who would live, in the moral sense
of life, must he looking forward to something. You will scarcely
suspect me, my brethren, of seeking to disparage the great prin
ciple of tradition ;—that principle to which the Christian Church
owes her sacred volume itself, no less than her treasure of formu
lated doctrine, and the structural conditions and sacramental
sources of her life ;—that principle to which each generation of
human society is deeply and inevitably indebted for the accumu
lated social and political experiences of the generations before it.
Precious indeed, to every wise man, to every association of true-
hearted and generous men, must ever be the inheritance of the
past. Yet what is the past without the future % What is
memory when unaccompanied by hope ? Look at the case of
the single soul. Is it not certain that a life of high earnest pur
pose will die outright, if it is permitted to sink into the placid
reverie of perpetual retrospect, if the man of action becomes the
mere ' laudator temporis acti V How is the force of moral life
developed and strengthened 1 Is it not by successive conscious
efforts to act and to suffer at the call of duty ? Must not any
moral life dwindle and fade away if it be not reaching forward to
a standard higher, truer, purer, stronger than its own ? Will
not the struggles, the sacrifices, the self-conquests even of a
great character in bygone years, if they now occupy its whole
field of vision, only serve to consummate its ruin 1 As it doat-
ingly fondles them in memory, will it not be stiffened by conceit
into a moral petrifaction, or consigned by sloth to the successive
processes of moral decomposition ? Has not the Author of our
life so bound up its deepest instincts and yearnings with His
own eternity, that no blessings in the past would be blessings to
us, if they were utterly unconnected with the future ? So it is
also in the case of a society. The greatest of all societies among
men at this moment is the Church of Jesus Christ. Is she sus
tained only by the deeds and writings of her saints and martyrs
in a distant past, or only by her reverent trustful sense of the
Divine Presence which blesses her in the actual present 1 Does
she not resolutely pierce the gloom of the future, and confidently
reckon upon new struggles and triumphs on earth, and, beyond
these, upon a home in Heaven, wherein she will enjoy rest and
victory,—a rest that no trouble can disturb, a victory that no
[ LECT.
to moral vigour and to national life. 73
' reverse can forfeit 1 Is not the same law familiar to us in this
place, as it affects the well-being of a great educational institu
tion? Here in Oxford we feel that we cannot rest upon the
varied efforts and the accumulated credit even of ten centuries.
We too have hopes embarked in the years or in the centuries
before us ; we have duties towards them. We differ, it may be,
even radically, among ourselves as to the direction in which to
look for our academical future. The hopes of some of us are
the fears of others. This project would fain banish from our
system whatever proclaims that God had really spoken, and that
it is man's duty and happiness gladly and submissively to wel
come His message ; while that scheme would endeavour, if pos
sible, to fashion each one of our intellectual workmen more and
more strictly after the type of a believing and fervent Christian.
The practical difference is indeed profound ; but we are entirely
agreed as to the general necessity for looking forward. On both
sides it is understood that an institution which is not struggling
upwards towards a higher future, must resign itself to the con
viction that it is already in its decadence, and must expect
to die.
Nor is it otherwise with that conglomeration of men which
we call a nation, the product of race, or the product of circum
stances, the product in any case of a Providential Will, Which
welds into a common whole, for the purposes of united action
and of reciprocal influence, a larger or smaller number of human
beings. A nation must have a future before it; a future which
can rebuke its despondency and can direct its enthusiasm ; a
future for which it will prepare itself ; a future which it will
aspire to create or to control. Unless it would barter away the
vigorous nerve of true patriotism for the feeble pedantry of a
soulless archaeology, a nation cannot fall back altogether upon
the centuries which have flattered its ambition, or which have
developed its material well-being. Something it must propose
to itself as an object to be compassed in the coming time ; some
thing which is as yet beyond it. It will enlarge its frontier ; or
it will develope its commercial resources ; or it will extend its
schemes of colonization ; or it will erect its overgrown colonies
into independent and friendly states ; or it will bind the severed
sections of a divided race into one gigantic nationality that shall
awe, if it do not subdue, the nations around. Or perchance its
attention will be concentrated on the improvement of its social
life, and on the details of its internal legislation. It will extend
the range of civil privileges ; it will broaden the basis of
74 A Future necessary to the Chosen People.
government ; it will provide additional encouragements to and
safeguards for public morality ; it will steadily aim at bettering
the condition of the classes who are forced, beyond others, to
work and to suffer. Thankful it may well be to the Author of
all goodness for the enjoyment of past blessings ; but the spirit of
a true thankfulness is ever and very nearly allied to the energy
of hope. Self-complacent a nation cannot be, unless it would
perish. Woe indeed to the country which dares to assume that
it has reached its zenith, and that it can achieve or attempt no
more !
Now Israel as a nation was not withdrawn from the operation
of this law, which makes the anticipation of a better future
of such vital importance to the common life of a people. Israel
indeed had been cradled in an atmosphere of physical and
political miracle. Her great lawgiver could point to the
event which gave her national existence as to an event unique
in human history* No subsequent vicissitudes would obliterate
the memory of the story which Israel treasured in her inmost
memory, the story of the stern Egyptian bondage followed
by the triumphant Exodus. How retrospective throughout
is the sacred literature of Israel ! It is not enough that the
great deliverance should be accurately chronicled ; it must
be expanded, applied, insisted on in each of its many bearings
and aspects by the lawgiver who directed and who described
it ; it must be echoed on from age to age, in the stern
expostulations of Prophets and in the plaintive or jubilant
songs of Psalmists. Certainly the greater portion of the
Old Testament is history. Israel was guided by the contents
of her sacred books to live in much grateful reflection upon
the past. Certainly, it was often her sin and her condemnation
that she practically lost sight of all that had been done for
her. Yet if ever it were permissible to forget the future,
Israel, it should seem, might have forgotten it. She might
have closed her eyes against the dangers which threatened
her from beyond the Lebanon, from beyond the Eastern and
the Southern desert, from beyond the Western sea, from
within her own borders, from the streets and the palaces
of her capital. She might have abandoned herself in an
ecstasy of perpetuated triumph to the voices of her poets
and to the rolls of her historians. But there was One Who
had loved Israel as a child, and had called His infant people
• Deut. iv. 34.
[ LECT.
Its character, not secular but religiotis. 75
out of Egypt, and had endowed it with His Name and His
Law, and had so fenced its life around by protective institutions,
that, as the ages passed, neither strange manners nor hostile
thought should avail to corrupt what He had so bountifully
given to it. Was He forgetful to provide for and to direct
that instinct of expectation, without which as a nation it
could not live ] Had He indeed not thus provided, Israel
might have struggled with vain energy after ideals such as
were those of the nations around her. She might have spent
herself, like the Tyrian or Sidonian merchant, for a large
commerce ; she might have watched eagerly, and fiercely, like
the Cilician pirate or like the wild sons of the desert, for
the spoils of adjacent civilizations ; she might have essayed
to combine, after the Greek pattern, a discreet measure of
sensuality with a great activity of the speculative intellect ;
she might have fared as did the Babylonian, or the Persian,
or the Roman ; at least, she might have attempted the estab
lishment of a world-wide tyranny around the throne of a
Hebrew Belshazzar or of a Hebrew Nero. Nor is her history
altogether free from the disturbing influence of such ideals
as were these ; we do not forget the brigandage of the days
of the Judges, or the imperial state and prowess of Solomon,
or the commercial enterprise of Jehoshaphat, or the union
of much intellectual activity with low moral effort which
marked more than one of the Eabbinical schools. But the
life and energy of the nation was not really embarked, at
least in its best days, in the pursuit of these objects ; their
attractive influence was intermittent, transient, accidental.
The expectation of Israel was steadily directed towards a
future, the lustre of which would in some real sense more
than eclipse her glorious past. That future was not sketched
by the vain imaginings of popular aspirations ; it was unveiled
to the mind of the people by a long series of authoritative
announcements. These announcements did not merely point
to the introduction of a new state of things ; they centred
very remarkably upon a coming Person. God Himself vouch
safed to satisfy the instinct of hope which sustained the national
life of His own chosen people ; and Israel lived for the expected
Messiah.
But Israel, besides being a civil polity, was a theocracy ;
she was not merely a nation, she was a Church. In Israel
religion was not, as with the peoples of pagan antiquity, a
mere attribute or function of the national life. Religion was
76 Israelitic belief concerning God and sin,
the very soul and substance of the life of Israel ; Israel was
a Church encased, embodied in a political constitution. Hence
it was that the most truly national aspirations in Israel were her
religious aspirations. Even the modern naturalist critics can
not fail to observe, as they read the Hebrew Scriptures, that
the mind of Israel was governed by two dominant convictions,
the like of which were unknown to any other ancient people.
God was the first thought in the mind of Israel. The existence,
the presence of One Supreme, Living, Personal Being, Who
alone exists necessarily, and of Himself ; Who sustains the
life of all besides Himself; before Whom, all that is not
Himself is but a shadow and vanity; from Whose sanctity
there streams forth upon the conscience of man that moral
law which is the light of human life ; and in Whose mercy
all men, especially the afflicted, the suffering, the poor, may,
if they will, find a gracious and long-suffering Patron,—this
was the substance of the first great conviction of the people
of Israel. Dependent on that conviction was another. The
eye of Israel was not merely opened towards the heavens ; it
was alive to the facts of the moral human world. Israel was
conscious of the presence and power of sin. The ' healthy sen
suality,' as Strauss has admiringly termed it15, which pervaded
the whole fabric of life among the Greeks, had closed up the
eye of that gifted race to a perception which was so familiar to
the Hebrews. We may trace indeed throughout the best Greek
poetry a vein of deep suppressed melancholy0; but the secret
of this subtle, of this inextinguishable sadness was unknown
b See Luthardt, Apologetische Vortrage, vorl. vii. note 6. The expression
occurs in Schubart's Leben, ii. 461. Luthardt quotes a very characteristic
passage from Goethe (vol. xxx. Winckelmann, Antikes Heidnisches, pp.
10-13) t° the same effect. ' If the modern, at almost every reflection, casts
himself into the Infinite, to return at last, if he can, to a limited point ; the
ancients feel themselves at once, and without further wanderings, at ease only
within the limits of this beautiful world. Here were they placed, to this
were they called, here their activity has found scope, and their passions
objects and nourishment.' The 'heathen mind,' he says, produced 'such a
condition of human existence, a condition intended by nature,' that ' both in
the moment of highest enjoyment and in that of deepest sacrifice, nay, of
absolute ruin, we recognise the indestructibly healthy tone of their thought.'
Similarly in Strauss' Leben Miirklin's, 1851, p. 127, Marklin says, 'I would
with all my heart be a heathen, for here I find truth, nature, greatness.'
c See the beautiful passage quoted from Lasaulx, Abhandlung iiber den
Sinn der CEdipus-sage, p. 10, by Luthardt, ubi supra, note 7. Cf. also
Dollinger, Heid. und Jud. bk. v. pt. I, § 2; Abp. Trench, Huls. Lectures,
ed. 3, P- 3°S> also Comp. II. xvii. 446; Od. xi. 489, xviii. 130; Eurip. Hippol.
190, Med. 1124, Fragm. No. 454, 808.
[ LECT.
points to a religious Deliverer. 77
to the accomplished artists who gave to it an involuntary ex
pression, and who lavished their choicest resources upon the
oft-repeated effort to veil it beneath the bright and graceful
drapery of a versatile light-heartedness peculiarly their own.
But the Jew knew that sin was the secret of human sorrow.
He could not forget sin if he would ; for before his eyes, the
importunate existence and the destructive force of sin were
inexorably pictured in the ritual. He witnessed daily sacrifices
for sin ; he witnessed the sacrifice of sacrifices which was
offered on the Day of Atonement, and by which the ' nation of
religion,' impersonated in its High Priest, solemnly laid its sins
upon the sacrificial victim, and bore the blood of atonement into
the Presence-chamber of God. Then the moral law sounded in
his ears ; he knew that he had not obeyed it. If the Jew could
not be sure that the blood of bulls and goats really effected his
reconciliation with God ; if his own prophets told him that
moral obedience was more precious in God's sight than sacrificial
oblations ; if the ritual, interpreted as it was by the Decalogue,
created yearnings within him which it could not satisfy, and
deepened a sense of pollution which of itself it could not relieve ;
yet at least the Jew could not ignore sin, or think lightly of it,
or essay to gild it over with the levities of raillery. He could
not screen from his sight its native blackness, and justify it to
himself by a philosophical theory which should represent it as
inevitable, or as being something else than what it is. The
ritual forced sin in upon his daily thoughts ; the ritual inflicted
it upon his imagination as being a terrible and present fact ;
and so it entered into and coloured his whole conception alike of
national and of individual life. Thus was it that this sense of
sin moulded all true Jewish hopes, all earnest Jewish antici
pations of the national future. A future which promised
political victory or deliverance, but which offered no relief to
the sense of sin, would have failed to meet the better aspirations,
and to cheer the real heart of a people which, amid whatever
unfaithfulness to its measure of light, yet had a true knowledge
of God, and was keenly alive to the fact and to the effects of
moral evil. And He Who, by His earlier revelations, had Him
self made the moral needs of Israel so deep, and had bidden the
hopes of Israel rise so high, vouchsafed to meet the one, and to
offer a plenary satisfaction to the other, in the doctrine of an
expected Messiah.
It is then a shallow misapprehension which represents the
Messianic belief as a sort of outlying prejudice or superstition,
n]
78 First Period of Messianic prophecy.
incidental to the later thought of Israel, and to which Chris
tianity has attributed an exaggerated importance, that it may
the better find a basis in Jewish history for the Person of its
Founder. The Messianic belief was in truth interwoven with
the deepest life of the people. The promises which formed and
fed this belief are distributed along nearly the whole range of
the Jewish annals ; while the belief rests originally upon sacred
traditions, which carry us up to the very cradle of the human
family, although they are preserved in the sacred Hebrew Books.
It is of importance to enquire whether this general Messianic
belief included any definite convictions respecting the personal
rank of the Being Who was its object.
In the gradual unfolding of the Messianic doctrine, three
stages of development may be noted within the limits of the
Hebrew Canon, and a fourth beyond it. (a) Of these the first
appears to end with Moses. The Protevangelium contains a
broad indeterminate prediction of a victory of humanity d over
the Evil Principle that had seduced man to his fall. The ' Seed
of the woman' is to bruise the serpent's head6. With the lapse
of years this blessing, at first so general and indefinite, is nar
rowed down to something in store for the posterity of Shemf,
and subsequently for the descendants of Abrahams. In Abra
ham's Seed all the families of the earth are to be blessed.
Already within this bright but generally indefinite prospect of
deliverance and blessing, we begin to discern the advent of a
Personal Deliverer. St. Paul argues, in accordance with the
Jewish interpretation, that 'the Seed' is here a personal Mes
siah11 ; the singular form of the word denoting His individu
ality, while its collective force suggests the representative
character of His Human Nature. The characteristics of this
personal Messiah emerge gradually in successive predictions.
The dying Jacob looks forward to a Shiloh as One to Whom of
right belongs the regal and legislative authority', and to Whom
i So two of the Targums, which nevertheless refer the fulfilment of the
promise to the days of the King Messiah. The singular form of the collective
noun would here, as in Gen. xxii. 1 8, have been intended to suggest an indi
vidual descendant.
e Gen. iii. 15 ; cf. Rom. rvi. 20 ; Gal. iv. 4; Heb. ii. 14 ; I St. John iii. 8.
' Gen. ix. 26. 8 Ibid. xxii. 18.
h Gal. iii. 16. See the Rabbinical authorities quoted by Wetstein, in
loc. On the objection raised from the collective force of mepiia, cf. Bishop
Ellicott, in loc.
1 Gen. xlix. 10. On the reading rrtffl see Pusey, Daniel the Prophet,
p. 252. The sense given in the text is supported by Targum Onkelos,
[ LECT.
Second Period of Messianic prophecy . 79
the obedient nations will be gathered. Balaam sings of the Star
That will come out of Jacob and the Sceptre That will rise out
of Israeli This is something more than an anticipation of the
reign of David : it manifestly points to the glory and power of
a Higher Royalty. Moses1 foretells a Prophet Who would in a
later age be raised up from among the Israelites, like unto him
self. This Prophet accordingly was to be the Lawgiver, the
Teacher, the Ruler, the Deliverer of Israel. If the prophetic
order at large is included in this prediction111, it is only as being
personified in the Last and the Greatest of the Prophets, in the
One Prophet Who was to reveal perfectly the mind of God, and
Whose words were to be implicitly obeyed. During this primary
period we do not find explicit assertions of the Divinity of
Messiah. But in that predicted victory over the Evil One ; in
that blessing which is to be shed on all the families of the earth ;
in that rightful sway over the gathered peoples ; in the absolute
and perfect teaching of that Prophet Who is to be like the great
Lawgiver while yet He transcends him,—must we not trace
a predicted destiny which reaches higher than the known limits
of the highest human energy ? Is not this early prophetic lan
guage only redeemed from the imputation of exaggeration or
vagueness, by the point and justification which are secured to it
through the more explicit disclosures of a succeeding age ?
(0) The second stage of the Messianic doctrine centres in the
reigns of David and Solomon. The form of the prophecy here
as elsewhere is suggested by the period at which it is uttered.
When mankind was limited to a single family, the Hope of the
future had lain in the seed of the woman : the Patriarchal age
had looked forward to a descendant of Abraham ; the Mosaic to
a Prophet and a Legislator. In like manner the age of the
Jewish monarchy in its bloom of youth and prowess, was bidden
fix its eye upon an Ideal David Who was to be the King of the
future of the world. Not that the colouring or form of the
prophetic announcement lowered its scope to the level of a
Jewish or of a human monarchy. The promise of a kingdom to
David and to his house for ever11, a promise on which, we know,
Jerusalem Targum, the Syr. and Arab, versions, those of Aquila and Sym-
machus, and substantially by the LXX. and Vulgate.
k Num. xxiv. 1 7.
1 Deut. xviii. i8, 19 ; see Hengstenberg's Christologie des A. T. vol. i.
p. 90; Acts iii. 22, vii. 37 ; St. John i. 11, vi. 14, xii. 48, 49.
m Cf. Deut. xviii. 15.
" 2 Sam. vii. 16 (Ps. Ixxxix. 36, 37; St. John xii. 34). 'From David's
address to God, after receiving the message by Nathan, it is plain that David
n]
80 Witness of the Messianic Psalms.
the great Psalmist rested at the hour of his death °, could not be
fulfilled by any mere continuation of his dynasty on the throne
of Jerusalem. It implied, as both David and Solomon saw,
some Superhuman Eoyalty. Of this Eoyalty the Messianic
Psalms present us with a series of pictures, each of which
illustrates a distinct aspect of its dignity, while all either imply
or assert the Divinity of the King. In the second Psalm, for
instance, Messiah is associated with the Lord of Israel as His
Anointed SonP, while against the authority of Both the heathen
nations are rising in rebellion"!. Messiah's inheritance is to in
clude all heathendom1; His Sonship is not merely theocratic or
ethical, but Divine9. All who trust in Him are blessed ; all
who incur His wrath must perish with a sharp and swift de
struction*. In the first recorded prayer of the Church of
Christ u, in St. Paul's sermon at Antioch of PisidiaT, in the
argument which opens the Epistle to the Hebrews* this Psalm
is quoted in such senses, that if we had no Kabbinical text
books at hand, we could not doubt the belief of the Jewish
Church respecting ity. The forty-fifth Psalm is a picture of the
understood the Son promised to be the Messiah in Whom his house was to
be established for ever. But the words which seem most expressive of this
are in this verse now rendered very unintelligibly "and is this the manner of
man ?" whereas the words Dlun mm nsn literally signify " and this is (or
must be) the law of the man, or of the Adam," i.e. this promise must relate
to the law, or ordinance, made by God to Adam concerning the Seed of the
woman, the Man, or the Second Adam, as the Messiah is expressly called by
St. Paul, i Cor. xv. 45-47.'—Kennicott, Remarks on the Old Testament,
p. 115. He confirms this interpretation by comparing 1 Chron. xvii. 17 with
Rom. v. 14. 0 2 Sam. xxiii. 5.
P Ps. ii. 7. t Ibid. ver. 2.
r Ibid. vers. 8, 9. > Ibid. ver. 7.
' Ibid. ver. 12. See Dr. Pusey's note on St. Jerome's rendering of
■QlpUH, Daniel the Prophet, p. 47S, note 2. 'It seems to me that St. Jerome
preferred the rendering "the Son," since he adopted it where he could
explain it, [viz. in the brief commentary,] but gave way to prejudice in
rendering " adore purely." ' Cf. also Replies to Essays and Reviews, p. 98.
Also Delitzsch Psalmen, i. p. 15, note. ' Dass 12 den Artikel nicht vertragt,
dient auch im Hebr. bfter die Indetermination ad amplijicandum (s. Fleischer
zu Zamachschari's Gold. Halsbandern Ann. 2 S. 1 f.) indem sie durch die in
ihr liegende Unbegrenztheit die Einbildungskraft zur Vergrosserung des so
ausgedriickten Begriffs auffordert. Ein arab. Ausleger wiirde an u. St. erk-
laren : " Kiisset einen Sohn, und was fur einen Sohn ! " '
» Acts iv. 25, 26. v Ibid. xiii. 33.
1 Heb. i. 5 ; cf. Rom. i. 4.
y The Chaldee Targum refers this Psalm to the Messiah. So the Bereshith
Rabba. The interpretation was changed with a view to avoiding the pressure
of the Christian arguments. 'Our masters,' says R. Solomon Jarchi, 'have
expounded [this Psalm] of King Messiah ; but, according to the letter, and
Divine Royalty of Messiah in the Psalms. 81
peaceful and glorious union of the King Messiah with His
mystical bride, the Church of redeemed humanity. Messiah is
introduced as a Divine King reigning among men. His form is
of more than human beauty ; His lips overflow with grace ;
God has blessed Him for ever, and has anointed Him with the
oil of gladness above His fellows. But Messiah is also directly
addressed as God ; He is seated upon an everlasting throne z.
Neither of these Psalms can be adapted without exegetical vio
lence to the circumstances of Solomon or of any other king of
ancient Israel ; and the New Testament interprets the picture of
the Royal Epithalamium, no less than that of the Royal triumph
over the insurgent heathen, of the one true King Messiah \ In
another Psalm the character and extent of this Messianic
Sovereignty are more distinctly pictured13. Solomon, when at
the height of his power, sketches a Superhuman King, ruling
an empire which in its character and in its compass altogether
transcends his own. The extremest boundaries of the kingdom
of Israel melt away before the gaze of the Psalmist. The new
kingdom reaches ' from sea to sea, and from the flood unto the
world's endc.' It reaches from each frontier of the Promised
Land, to the remotest regions of the known world, in the
opposite quarter. From the Mediterranean it extends to the
ocean that washes the shores of Eastern Asia ; from the
for furnishing answer to the Minim [i. e. the Christian " heretics"], it is better
to interpret it of David himself.' Quoted by Pearson on art. 2, notes ;
Chandler, Defence of Christianity, p. 212 ; Pocock, Porta Mosis, note, p. 307.
See too Dr. Pye Smith, Messiah, vol. i. p. J97.
z Dr. Pusey observes that of those who have endeavoured to evade the
literal sense of the words addressed to King Messiah (ver. 6), ' Thy throne,
O God, is for ever and ever,' ' no one who thought he could so construct the
sentence that the word Elohim need not designate the being addressed,
doubted that Elohim signified God ; and no one who thought that he could
make out for the word Elohim any other meaning than that of " God,"
doubted that it designated the being addressed. A right instinct prevented
each class from doing more violence to grammar or to idiom than he needed,
in order to escape the truth which he disliked. If people thought that they
might paraphrase " Thy throne, O Judge" or "Prince," or "image of God,"
or " who art as a God to Pharaoh," they hesitated not to render with us " Thy
throne is for ever and ever." If men think that they may assume such an
idiom as "Thy throne of God" meaning "Thy Divine throne," or "Thy
throne is God" meaning "Thy throne is the throne of God," they doubt not
that Elohim means purely and simply God. ... If people could persuade
themselves that the words were a parenthetic address to God, no one would
hesitate to own their meaning to be " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever."' Daniel the Prophet, pp. 470, 471, and note 8. Rev. v. 13. Cf.
Delitzsch in loc.
» Heb. i. 8. » Ps. Ixxii. c Ibid. ver. 8. ,
II] G
82 Divine Royalty of Messiah in the Psalms.
Euphrates to the utmost West. At the feet of its mighty
Monarch, all who are most inaccessible to the arms or to the
influence of Israel hasten to tender their voluntary submission.
The wild sons of the desert d, the merchants of Tarshish in the
then distant Spaine, the islanders of the Mediterranean^ the
Arab chiefs?, the wealthy Nubians11, are foremost in proffering
their homage and fealty. But all kings are at last to fall down
in submission before the Euler of the new kingdom ; all nations
are to do Him service'. His empire is to be co-extensive with
the world : it is also to be co-enduring with timek. His empire
is to be spiritual ; it is to confer peace on the world, but by
righteousness'. The King will Himself secure righteous judg
ment10, salvation", deliverance0, redemptions, to His subjects.
The needy, the afflicted, the friendless, will be the especial
objects of His tender care0.. His appearance in the world will
be like the descent of 'the rain upon the mown grass1;' the true
life of man seems to have been killed out, but it is yet capable
of being restored by Him. He Himself, it is hinted, will be out
of sight ; but His Name will endure for ever ; His Name will
1 propagate8 j' and men shall be blessed in Him', to the end of
time. This King is immortal ; He is also all-knowing and all-
mighty. ' Omniscience alone can hear the cry of every human
heart ; Omnipotence alone can bring deliverance to every human
sufferer".' Look at one more representation of this Koyalty,
that to which our Lord Himself referred, in dealing with his
Jewish adversaries*. David describes his Great Descendant
Messiah as his ' LordY.' Messiah is sitting on the right hand of
Jehovah, as the partner of His dignity. Messiah reigns upon a
throne which impiety alone could assign to any human monarch ;
He is to reign until His enemies are made His footstool2 ; He is
ruler now, even among His unsubdued opponents". In the day
of His power, His people offer themselves willingly to His
service ; they are clad not in earthly armour, but ' in the
beauties of holiness0.' Messiah is Priest as well as Kingc ; He
is an everlasting Priest of that older order which had been
d Ps. lxxii. 9, E"S. 6 Ibid. ver. io. ' Ibid.
s Ibid. h Ibid. mid. 1 Ibid. ver. II.
k Ibid. ver. 17. 1 Ibid. ver. 3. m Ibid. vers. 2, 4.
n Ibid. vers. 4, 13. 0 Ibid. ver. 12. P Ibid. ver. 14.
1 Ibid. vers. 12, 13. ' Ibid. ver. 6; cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 4.
s Ps. lxxii. 17. ' Ibid.
u Daniel the Prophet, p. 479.
" St. Matt. xxii. 41-45; Ps ex. I. J Ps. ex. 1. 1 Ibid.
* Ibid. ver. 2. * Ibid. ver. 3. c Ibid. ver. 4.
T LECT.
Third Period of Messianic prophecy. 83
honoured by the father of the faithful. Who is this everlasting
Priest, this resistless King, reigning thus amid His enemies
and commanding the inmost hearts of His servants ] He is
David's Descendant ; the Pharisees knew that truth. But He
is also David's Lord. How could He be both, if He was merely
human 1 The belief of Christendom can alone answer the
question which our Lord addressed to the Pharisees. The Son
of David is David's Lord, because He is God ; the Lord of
David is David's Son, because He is God Incarnate"1.
(y) These are but samples of that rich store of Messianic
prophecy which belongs to the second or Davidic period, and
much more of which has an important bearing on our present
subject. The third period extends from the reign of Uzziah to
the close of the Hebrew Canon in Malachi. Here Messianic
prophecy reaches its climax : it expands into the fullest par
ticularity of detail respecting Messiah's Human life ; it mounts
to the highest assertions of His Divinity. Isaiah is the richest
mine of Messianic prophecy in the Old Testamente. Messiah,
especially designated as 'the Servant of God,' is the central
figure in the prophecies of Isaiah. Both in Isaiah and in
Jeremiah, the titles of Messiah are often and pointedly ex
pressive of His true Humanity. He is the Fruit of the earth f;
d On Ps. 1 10, see Pusey on Daniel, p. 466, sqq. Delitzsch Psalmen ii.
p. e639.
With reference to the modern theory (Renan, Vie de Jesus, p. 37, &c.
&c.) of a ' later Isaiah,' or ' Great Unknown,' living at the time of the
Babylonish Captivity, and the assumed author of Is. xl.-lxvi., it may suffice
to refer to Professor Payne Smith's valuable volume of University Sermons
on the subject. When it is taken for granted on a priori grounds that bond
fide prediction of strictly future events is impossible, the Bible predictions must
either be resolved into the far-sighted anticipations of genius, or, if their
accuracy is too detailed to admit of this explanation, they must be treated as
being only historical accounts of the events referred to, thrown with whatever
design into the form of prophecy. The predictions respecting Cyrus in the
latter part of Isaiah are too explicit to be reasonably regarded as the results
of natural foresight ; hence the modern assumption of a ' later Isaiah' as their
real author. ' Supposing this assumption,' says Bishop Ollivant, ' to be true,
this later Isaiah was not only a deceiver, but also a witness to his own fraud ;
for he constantly appeals to prophetic power as a test of truth, making it,
and specifically the prediction respecting the deliverance of the Jews by
Cyrus, an evidence of the foreknowledge of Jehovah, as distinguished from
the nothingness of heathen idols. And yet we are to suppose that when this
fraud was first palmed upon the Jewish nation, they were so simple as not to
have perceived that out of his own mouth this false prophet was con
demned '. '—Charge of Bishop of Llandaff, 1866, p. 99, note b. Comp.
Delitzsch, Der Prophet Jesaia, p. 23. Smith's Diet. Bible, art. ' Isaiah.'
' Isa. iv. 2.
Ii] G 2
84 Divine Royalty of Messiah in the prophets.
He is the Rod out of the stem of Jesses • He is the Branch or
Sprout of David, the Zemachh. He is called by God from His
mother's womb* ; God has put His Spirit upon Himk. He is
anointed to preach good tidings to the meek, to bind up the
broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captive1. He is a
Prophet ; His work is greater than that of any prophet of
Israel. Not merely will He come as a Redeemer to them that
turn from transgression in Jacob m, and to restore the preserved
of Israel11 ; He is also given as a Light to the Gentiles, as the
Salvation of God unto the end of the earth0. Such is His
Spiritual Power as Prophet and Legislator that He will write
the law of the Lord, not upon tables of stone, but on the heart
and conscience of the true Israel p. In Zechariah as in David
He is an enthroned Priesti, but it is the Kingly glory of
Messiah which predominates throughout the prophetic repre
sentations of this period, and in which His Superhuman Nature
is most distinctly suggested. According to Jeremiah, the Branch
of Righteousness, who is to be raised up among the posterity of
David, is a King who will reign and prosper and execute judg
ment and justice in the earth1". According to Isaiah, this
expected King, the Root of Jesse, ' will stand for an ensign of
the people the Gentiles will seek Him ; He will be the
rallying-point of the world's hopes, the true centre of its govern
ment8. Righteousness, equity, swift justice, strict faithfulness,
will mark His administration' ; He will not be dependent like a
human magistrate upon the evidence of His senses ; He will not
judge after the sight of His eyes, nor reprove after the hearing
of His ears 11 ; He will rely upon the infallibility of a perfect moral
insight. Beneath the shadow of His throne, all that is by nature
savage, proud, and cruel among the sons of men will learn the
habits of tenderness, humility, and love x. ' The wolf also shall
dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the
kid ; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together ;
and a little child shall lead them.' The reign of moral power, of
spiritual graces, of innocence, of simplicity, will succeed to the
reign of physical and brute force. The old sources of moral
danger will become harmless through His protecting presence
and blessing ; ' The sucking child shall play on the hole of the
S Tsa. xi. I. h Jer. xxiii. 5; xxxiii. 15. ' Isa. xlix. 1.
k Ibid. xlii. I. 1 Ibid. lxi. 1. m Ibid. lix. 20.
n Ibid. xlix. 6. 0 Ibid. P Jer. xxxi. 31-35.
i Zech. yi. 13. r Jer. xxiii. 5. ■ Isa. xi. 10.
' Ibid. vers. 4, 5. a Ibid. ver. 3. * Ibid. vers. 6-8.
[lect.
Messiah is to win the world by His sufferings. 85
asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice'
deny / and in the end 'the earth shall be full of the knowledge
of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea2.' Daniel is taught
that at the 'anointing of the Most Holy'—after a defined
period—God will ' finish the transgressions,' and ' make an end
of sins,' and 'make reconciliation for iniquity,' and 'bring in
everlasting righteousness a.' Zechariah too especially points out
the moral and spiritual characteristics of the reign of King
Messiah. The founder of an eastern dynasty must ordinarily
wade through blood and slaughter to the steps of his throne,
and must maintain his authority by force. But the daughter of
Jerusalem beholds her King coming to her, ' Just and having
salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass.' ' The chariots are cut
off from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem the King
' speaks peace unto the heathen ;' the ' battle-bow is broken ;'
and yet His dominion extends 'from sea to sea, and from the
river to the ends of the earthV
In harsh and utter contrast, as it seems, to this repre
sentation of Messiah as a Jewish King, the moral conqueror and
ruler of the world, there is another representation of Him which
belongs to the Davidic period as well as to that of Isaiah.
Messiah had been typified in David persecuted by Saul and
humbled by Absalom, no less truly than He had been typified in
Solomon surrounded by all the glory of his imperial court.
If Messiah reigns in the forty-fifth or in the seventy-second
Psalms, He suffers, nay He is pre-eminent among the suffering,
in the twenty-second. We might suppose that the suffering Just
One who is described by David, reaches the climax of anguish ;
but the portrait of an archetypal Sorrow has been even more
minutely touched by the hand of Isaiah. In both writers, how
ever, the deepest humiliations and woes are confidently treated
as the prelude to an assured victory. The Psalmist passes, from
what is little less than an elaborate programme of the historical
circumstances of the Crucifixion, to an announcement that by
these unexampled sufferings the heathen will be converted, and
all the kindreds of the Gentiles will be brought to adore the
true Godc. The Prophet describes the Servant of God as
'despised and rejected of mend;' His sorrows are viewed with
general satisfaction ; they are accounted a just punishment for
y Isa. xi. 8. 1 Ibid. ver. 9. " Dan. ix. 14. b Zech. ix. 9, 10.
0 Ps. xxii. i-2i, and 27. Phillips, on Ps. xxii., argues that the Messianic
sense is 'the true and only true' sense of it. d Isa. liii. 3.
86 Significance of the theory of a double Messiah.
Ilis own supposed crimese. Yet in reality He bears our in
firmities, and carries our sorrows f ; His wounds are due to our
transgressions ; His stripes have a healing virtue for usS. His
sufferings and death are a trespass-offering11 ; on Him is laid
the iniquity of all'. If in Isaiah the inner meaning of the
tragedy, is more fully insisted on, the picture itself is not less
vivid than that of the Psalter. The suffering Servant stands
before His judges ; ' His Visage is so marred more than any
man, and His Form more than the sons of menk ;' like a lamb1,
innocent, defenceless, dumb, He is led forth to the slaughter ;
' He is cut off from the land of the living™.' Yet the Prophet
pauses at His grave to note that He ' shall see of the travail of
His soul and shall be satisfied11,' that God 'will divide Him a
portion with the great,' and that He will Himself 'divide the spoil
with the strong.' And all this is to follow 'because He hath
poured out His soul unto death°.' His death is to be the con
dition of His victory ; His death is the destined instrument
whereby He will achieve His mediatorial reign of glory.
Place yourselves, brethren, by an effort of intellectual sym
pathy in the position of the men who heard this language
while its historical fulfilment, so familiar to us Christians,
• was as yet future. How self-contradictory must it have
appeared to them, how inexplicable, how full of paradox !
How strong must have been the temptation to anticipate
that invention of a double Messiah, to which the later Jewish
doctors had recourse, that they might escape the manifest
cogency of the Christian argument P. That our Lord should
actually have submitted Himself to the laws and agencies
of disgrace and discomfiture, and should have turned His
deepest humiliation into the very weapon of His victory, is
not the least among the evidences of His Divine power and
mission. And the prophecy which so paradoxically dared to
say that He would in such fashion both suffer and reign,
assuredly and implicitly contained within itself another and
a higher truth. Such majestic control over the ordinary con
ditions of failure betokened something more than an extraor-
e Isa. liii. 4. ' Ibid. e Ibid. ver. 5.
h Ibid. ver. 13. 1 Ibid. ver. 6. k Ibid. lii. 14.
1 Ibid. liii. 7. m Ibid. ver. 8. " Ibid. ver. II.
0 Ibid. ver. 12.
p See Dr. Hengstenberg's elaborate account of the successive Jewish
interpretations of Isaiah lii. 1 3—liii. 12, Christolog. vol. ii. pp. 310-319
(Clarke's trans.). Dr. Payne smith on Isaiah, p. 172.
[ LECT.
Divinity ascribed in terms to the Messiah. 87
dinary man, something not less than a distinctly Superhuman
Personality. Taken in connection with the redemptive powers,
the world-wide sway, the spiritual, heart-controlling teaching,
so distinctly ascribed to Him, this prediction that the Christ
would die, and would convert the whole world by death, pre
pares us for the most explicit statements of the prophets
respecting His Person. It is no surprise to a mind which
has dwelt steadily on the destiny which prophecy thus assigns
to Messiah, that Isaiah and Zechariah should speak of Him
as Divine. We will not lay stress upon the fact, that in
Isaiah the Kedeemer of Israel and of men is constantly asserted
to be the Creator % Who by Himself will save His people r.
Significant as such language is as to the bent of the Divine
Mind, it is not properly Messianic. But in that great pro
phecy8, the full and true sense of which is- so happily suggested
to us by its place in the Church services for Christmas Day,
the ' Son' who is given to Israel receives a fourfold Name. He
is a Wonder-Counsellor, or Wonderful, above all earthly beings ;
He possesses a Nature which man cannot fathom ; and He
thus shares and unfolds the Divine Mind '. He is the Father
of the Everlasting Age or of Eternity". He is the Prince
of Peace. Above all, He is expressly named, the Mighty God v.
[lect.
LECTURE III.
Whence hath This Man this Wisdom, and these mighty works f Is not This
the carpenter's Son 1 is not Sis mother called Mary ? and His brethren,
James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas ? And His sisters, are they not
all with us 1 Whence then hath This Man all these things 1
St. Matt. xiii. 54-56.
1 St. Matt. v. 21-30. m Ibid. vers. 31, 32. » Ibid. vers. 33-37.
° Ibid. vers. 38-42. P Ibid. vers. 43-47. 1 Ibid. vi. 1-4.
' Ibid. vers. 5-8. 1 Ibid. vers. 16-18. ' Ibid. ver. 24.
u Ibid. vers. 25-34. 1 Ibid. vii. 1-5. t Ibid. ver. 6.
• Ibid. vers. 7-1 1. * Ibid. ver. 12. b Ibid. vers. 13, 14.
0 Ibid. vers. 15-20. d Ibid. vers. 21-23. 8 Ibid. vers. 24-27.
Ill]
ioa The Kingdom both visible and invisible.
Such a proclamation of the law of the kingdom as was the
Sermon on the Mount, already implied that the kingdom would
be at once visible and invisible. On the one hand certain out
ward duties, such as the use of the Lord's Prayer and fasting,
are prescribed f ; on the other, the new law urgently pushes its
claim of jurisdiction far beyond the range of material acts into
the invisible world of thought and motive. The visibility of the
kingdom lay already in the fact of its being a society of men,
and not a society solely made up of incorporeal beings such as
the angels. The King never professes that He will be satisfied
with a measure of obedience which sloth or timidity might con
fine to the region of inoperative feelings and convictions ; He
insists with great emphasis upon the payment of homage to His
Invisible Majesty, outwardly, and before the eyes of men. Not
to confess Him before men is to break with Him for ever S; it
is to forfeit His blessing and protection when these would most
be needed. The consistent bearing, then, of His loyal subjects
will bring the reality of His rule before the sight of men ; but,
besides this, He provides His realm with a visible government,
deriving its authority from Himself, and entitled on this account
to deferential and entire obedience on the part of His subjects.
To the first members of this government His commission runs
thus :—' He that receiveth you, receiveth Me h.' It is the King
Who will Himself reign throughout all history on the thrones of
His representatives ; it is He Who, in their persons, will be
acknowledged or rejected. In this way His empire will have an
external and political side ; nor is its visibility to be limited to
its governmental organization. The form of prayer 1 which the
King enjoins on His subjects, and the outward visible actions by
which, according to His appointment, membership in His king
dom is to be begun J and maintained k, make the very life and
movement of the new society, up to a certain point, visible.
But undoubtedly the real strength of the kingdom, its deepest
life, its truest action, are veiled from sight. At bottom it is to
be a moral, not a material empire ; it is to be a realm not merely
of bodies but of souls, of souls instinct with intelligence and love.
Its seat of power will be the conscience of mankind. Not 'here'
or 'there' in outward signs of establishment and supremacy, but '
in the free conformity of the thought and heart of its members
f St. Matt. vi. 9-13, 16. e Ibid. x. 32 ; St. Luke m 8.
h St. Matt. x. 40; comp. St. Luke x. 16. 1 St. Matt. vi. 9-13.
i Ibid, xxviii. 19; St. John iii. 5.
k St. Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24 ; St. John vi. 53.
[lect.
Parables of the Kingdom. 103
to the Will of their Unseen Sovereign, shall its power be most
clearly recognised. Not as an oppressive outward code, but as
an inward buoyant exhilarating motive, will the King's Law
mould the life of His subjects. Thus the kingdom of God will
be found to be ' within ' men 1 ; it will be set up, not like an
earthly empire by military conquest or by violent revolution, but
noiselessly and ' not with observation™.' It will be maintained by
weapons more spiritual than the sword. ' If,' said the Monarch,
' My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight,
but now is My kingdom not from hence n.'
The charge to the twelve Apostles exhibits the outward
agency by which the kingdom would be established 0 ; and
the discourse in the supper-room unveils yet more fully the
secret sources of its strength and the nature of its influence P.
But the 'plan' of its Founder with reference to its establish
ment in the world is perhaps most fully developed in that
series of parables, which, from their common object and from
their juxtaposition in St. Matthew's Gospel, are commonly
termed Parables of the Kingdom. •
How various would be the attitudes of the human heart
towards the 'word of the kingdom,' that is, towards the
authoritative announcement of its establishment upon the
earth, is pointed out in the Parable of the Sower. The seed
of truth would fall from His Hand throughout all time by
the wayside, upon stony places, and among thorns, as well
as upon the good ground 1. It might be antecedently supposed
that within the limits of the new kingdom none were to be
looked for save the holy and the faithful. But the Parable
of the Tares corrects this too idealistic anticipation ; the king
dom is to be a field in which until the final harvest the
tares must grow side by side with the wheat r. The astonishing
expansion of the kingdom throughout the world is illustrated
1 St. Luke xvii. 2t. m Ibid. ver. 20. n St. John xviii. 36.
0 St. Matt. x. 5-42. t St. John xiv. xv. xvi.
1 St. Matt. xiii. 3-8, 19-23.
1 St. Matt. xiii. 24-30, 36-43. ' In catholic^ enim ecclesifl., quae non in
sol& AfricS sicut pars Donati, sed per omnes gentes, sicut promissa est,
dilatatur atque diffunditur, in universo mundo, sicut dicit Apostolus, frur-
tificans et crescens, et boni sunt et mali.' St. Aug. Ep. 708, n. 6. ' Si
boni sumus in ecclesi& Christi, frumenta sumus ; si mali sumus in ecclesiS
Christi, palea sumus, tamen ab are& non recedimus. Tu qui vento tenta-
tionis foris volasti, quid es? Triticum non tollit ventus ex areS.. Ex eo
ergo, ubi es, agnosce quid es.' In Ps. lxx. (Vulg.) Serm. ii. n. 12. Civ.
Dei, i. 35, and especially Retract, ii. 18.
m]
io4 Parables of the Kingdom.
by ' the grain of mustard seed, which indeed is the least of
all seeds, but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs »/
The principle and method of that expansion are to be observed
in the action of 'the leaven hid in the three measures of meal*.'
A secret invisible influence, a soul-attracting, soul-subduing
enthusiasm for the King and His work, would presently pene
trate the dull, dense, dead mass of human society, and its
hard heart and stagnant thought would expand, in virtue of
this inward impulse, into a new life of light and love. Thus
the kingdom is not merely represented as a mighty whole,
of which each subject soul is a fractional part. It is exhibited
as an attractive influence, acting energetically upon the inner
personal life of individuals. It is itself the great intellectual
and moral prize of which each truth-seeking soul is in quest,
and to obtain which all else may wisely and well be left behind.
The kingdom is a treasure hid in a field11, that is, in a line
of thought and enquiry, or in a particular discipline and mode
of life ; and the wise man will gladly part with all that he
has to buy that field. Or the kingdom is like a merchant-man
seeking 'goodly pearls v;' he sells all his possessions that he
may buy the ' one pearl of great price.' Here it is hinted that
entrance into the kingdom is a costly conquest and mastery
of truth, of that one absolute and highest Truth, which is
contrasted with the lower and relative truths current among
men. The preciousness of membership in the kingdom is
only to be completely realized by an unreserved submission
to the law of sacrifice ; the kingdom flashes forth in its
full moral beauty before the eye of the soul, as the merchant
man resigns his all in favour of the one priceless pearl. In
these two parables, then, the individual soul is represented
as seeking the kingdom ; and it is suggested how tragic in
many cases would be the incidents, how excessive the sacrifices,
attendant upon ' pressing into it.' But a last parable is added
in which the kingdom is pictured, not as A prize which can
be seized by separate souls, but as a vast imperial system,
as a world-wide home of all the races of mankind. Like
a net* thrown into the Galilean lake, so would the kingdom
extend its toils around entire tribes and nations of men ;
the vast struggling multitude would be drawn nearer and
nearer to the eternal shore ; until at last the awful and final
s St. Matt. xiii. 31, 32. * Ibid. vcr. 33. » Ibid. ver. 44.
* Ibid. vers. 45, 46. 1 Ibid. vers. 47-50.
[ LECT.
Two characteristics of the 'plan' ofJesus Christ. 105
separation would take place beneath the eye of Absolute Justice ;
the good would be gathered into vessels, but the bad would
be cast away.
The proclamation of this kingdom was termed the Gospel,
that is, the good news of God. It was good news for mankind,
Jewish as well as Pagan, that a society was set up on earth
wherein the human soul might rise to the height of its original
destiny, might practically understand the blessedness and the
awfulness of life, and might hold constant communion in a
free, trustful, joyous, childlike spirit with the Author and
the End of its existence. The ministerial work of our Lord
was one long proclamation of this kingdom. He was per
petually defining its outline, or promulgating and codifying
its laws, or instituting and explaining the channels of its
organic and individual life, or gathering new subjects into
it by His words of wisdom or by His deeds of power, or
perfecting and refining the temper and cast of character which
was to distinguish them. When at length He had Himself
overcome the sharpness of death, He opened this kingdom of
heaven to all believers on the Day of Pentecost. His ministry
had begun with the words, ' Repent ye, for the kingdom of
heaven is at handy ;'■ He left the world, bidding His followers
carry forward the frontier of His kingdom to the utmost limits
of the human family2, and promising them that His presence
within it would be nothing less than co-enduring with time a.
Let us note more especially two features in the 'plan' of
our Blessed Lord.
(a) And, first, its originality. Need I say, brethren, that
real originality is rare 1 In this place many of us spend our
time very largely in imitating, recombining, reproducing existing
thought. Conscious as we are that for the most part we are
only passing on under a new form that which in its substance
has come to us from others, we honestly say so ; yet it may
chance to us at some time to imagine that in our brain an
idea or a design has taken shape, which is originally and
in truth our own creation—
' Libera per vacuum posui vestigia princeps ;
Non aliena meo pressi pedeV
Those few, rapid, decisive moments in which genius consciously
enjoys the exhilarating sense of wielding creative power, may
J St. Matt. iv. 17. ■ Ibid, xxviii. 19 ; St. Luke xxiv. 47 ; Acts i. 8.
" St. Matt, xxviii. 20. b Hor. Ep. i. 19. 21.
Ill]
io6 ' Originality ' of our Lord's 'plan' as
naturally be treasured in memory ; and yet, even in these,
how hard must it be to verify the assumed fact of an absolute
originality ! We of this day find the atmosphere of human
thought, even more than the surface of the earth, preoccupied
and thronged with the results of man's activity in times past
and present. In proportion to our consciousness of our real
obligations to this general stock of mental wealth, must we
not hesitate to presume that any one idea, the immediate origin
of which we cannot trace, is in reality our own ? Suppose
that in this or that instance we do believe ourselves, in perfect
good faith, to have produced an idea which is really entitled
to the merit of originality. May it not be, that if at the right
moment we could have examined the intellectual air around
us with a sufficiently powerful microscope, we should have
detected the germ of our idea 'floating in upon our personal
thought from without CV We only imagine ourselves to have
created the idea because, at the time of our inhaling it, we
were not conscious of doing so. The idea perhaps was suggested
indirectly ; it came to us along with some other idea upon
which our attention was mainly fixed ; it came to us so dis
guised or so undeveloped, that we cannot recognise it, so as
to trace the history of its growth. It came to us during the
course of a casual conversation ; or from a book the very name
of which we have forgotten; and our relationship towards it
has been after all that of a nurse, not that of a parent. We
have protected it, cherished it, warmed it, and at length
it has grown within the chambers of our mind, until we have
recognised its value and led it forth into the sunlight, shaping
it, colouring it, expressing it after a manner strictly our own,
and believing in good faith that because we have so entirely
determined its form, we are the creators of its substance d.
At any rate, my brethren, genius herself has not been slow to
confess how difficult it is to say that any one of her triumphs
is certainly due to a true originality. In one of his later
recorded conversations Goethe was endeavouring to decide
what are the real obligations of genius to the influences which
inevitably affect it. 'Much,' said he, 'is talked about originality;
but what does originality mean ? We are no sooner born than
the world around begins to act upon us ; its action lasts to
the end of our lives and enters into everything. All that we
0 This illustration was suggested to me, some years ago, by a well-known
Oxford tutor. It is developed, with his usual force, by Fe'lix, Jesus-Christ
p. 128. 4 Bautain, fitude sur l'art de pailer en public.
[ LECT.
guaranteed by the isolation of His Early Life. 107
can truly call our own is our energy, our vigour, our will. If
I,' he continued, 'could enumerate all that I really owe to
the great men who have preceded me, and to those of my
own day, it would be seen that very little is really my own.
It is a point of capital importance to observe at what time of
life the influence of a great character is brought to bear on us.
Lessing, Winkelmann, and Kant, were older than I, and it
has been of the greatest consequence to me that the two first
powerfully influenced my youth and the last my old agee.'
On such a subject, Goethe may be deemed a high authority,
and he certainly was not likely to do an injustice to genius,
or to be guilty of a false humility when speaking of himself.
But our Lord's design to establish upon the earth a kingdom
of souls was an original design. Eemark, as bearing upon this
originality, our Lord's isolation in His early life. His social
obscurity is, in the eyes of thoughtful men, the safeguard and
guarantee of His originality. It is not seriously pretended,
on any side, that Jesus Christ was enriched with one single
ray of His thought from Athens, from Alexandria, from the
mystics of the Ganges or of the Indus, from the disciples of
Zoroaster or of Confucius. The centurion whose servant He
healed, the Greeks whom He met at the instance of St. Philip,
the Syro-phoenician woman, the judge who condemned and the
soldiers who crucified Him, are the few Gentiles with whom
He is recorded to have had dealings during His earthly life.
But was our Lord equally isolated from the world of Jewish
speculation 1 M. Benan, indeed, impatient at the spectacle of
an unrivalled originality, suggests, not without some hesitation,
that Hillel was the real teacher of Jesus f. But Dr. Schenkel
8 Conversations de Goethe, trad. Delerot, torn. ii. p. 342, quoted in
the Rev. des Deux Mondes, 15 Oct. 1865.
f 'Hillel fut le vrai maltre de Je"sus, s'il est permis de parler de maltre
quand il s'agit d'une si haute originality.' Vie de Jesus, p. 35. As an
instance of our Lord's real independence of Hillel, a single example may
suffice. A recent writer on *the Talmud' gives the following story. 'One
day a heathen went to Shammai, the head of the rival academy, and asked
him mockingly to convert him to the law while he stood on one leg. The
irate master turned him from the door. He then went to Hillel, who gave
him that reply—since so widely propagated—' Do not unto another what
thou wouldest not have another do unto thee. This is the whole law:
the rest is mere commentary.' Quarterly Review, Oct. 1867, p. 441. art.
'The Talmud.' Or, as Hillel's words are rendered by Lightfoot : 'Quod
tibi ipsi odiosum est, proximo ne feceris : nam hsec est tota lex.' Hor.
Hebr. in Matt. p. 129. The writer in the Quarterly Review appears to
assume the identity of Hillel's saying with the precept of our Blessed Lord.
St. Matt. vii. ia ; St. Luke vi. 31. Yet in truth how wide is the interval
m]
io8 ' Originality ' of our Lord's ' plan] as
will tell us that this suggestion rests on no historical basis
whatever e, while we may remark in passing that it is at issue
with a theory which you would not care to notice at length,
but which M. Renan cherishes with much fondness, and which
represents our Lord's 'tone of thought' as a psychological
result of the scenery of north-eastern Palestine K The kindred
assumption that when making His yearly visits to Jerusalem
for the Feast of the Passover, or at other times, Jesus must
have become the pupil of some of the leading Jewish doctors
of the day, is altogether gratuitous. Once indeed, when He
was twelve years old, He was found in a synagogue, hard by
the temple, in close intellectual contact with aged teachers
of the Law. But all who hear Him, even then, in His early
Boyhood, are astonished at His understanding and answers ;
and the narrative of the Evangelist implies that the occurrence
was not repeated. Moreover there was no teaching in Judaea
at that era, which had not, in the true sense of the expression,
a sectarian colouring. But what is there in the doctrine or
in the character of Jesus that connects Him with a Pharisee
or a Sadducee, or an Herodian, or an Essene type of education ?
Is it not significant that, as Schleiermacher remarks, 'of all
the sects then in vogue none ever claimed Jesus as representing
it, none branded Him with the reproach of apostasy from its
tenets i]' Even if we lend an ear to the precarious conjecture
that He may have attended some elementary school at Nazareth,
between the merely negative rule of the Jewish President, (which had already
been given in Tobit iv. 15.) and the positive precept—8<ra tu> fl^Arjre Iva
noiiiffiv ifuv ot &vBponroi, ovra Kal vpus Troieire a!iTo7s—of the Divine Master.
On Gibbon's citation from Isocrates of a precept equivalent to Hillel's,
see Archbishop Trench, Huls. Lect. p. 157.
« 'Ganz unbewiesen ist es,' Scheukel, Charakterbild Jesu, p. 39, note.
When however Dr. Schenkel himself says, ' Den Einblick, den Er [sc. Jesu3]
in das Wesen vind Treiben der religiosen Richtungen und Parteiungen
seines Volkes in so hohem Masse befass, hat Er aus personlicher Wahrneh-
mung und unmittelbarem Verkebr mit den Hauptern und Vertretern der
verschiedenen Parteistandpunkte gewonnen' (ibid.), where is the justification
of this assertion, except in the Humanitarian and Naturalistic theory of the
writer, which makes some such assumption necessary?
h Vie de Je'sus, p. 64: 'Une nature ravissante contribuait a former
cet esprit.' Then follows a description of the flowers, the animals, the
insects, and the mountains (p. 65), the farms, the fruit-gardens, and the
vintage (p. 66), of Northern Galilee. M. Renan concludes, 'cette vie
contente et facilement satisfaite . . se spiritualisait en rSves e'the're's, en
une sorte de mysticisme poe'tique confondant le ciel et la terre. . . . Toute
l'histoire du Christianisme naissant est devenue de la sorte une delicieuse
pastorale.' p. 67. 1 Leben Jesu, vorl. xvi.
[ LECT.
gtiaranteed by the isolation ofHis Early Life. 109
it is plain that the people believed Him to have gone through
no formal course of theological training. ' How knoweth This
Man letters, having never learned M' was a question which
betrayed the popular surprise created by a Teacher Who spoke
with the highest authority, and Who yet had never sat at
the feet of an accredited doctor. It was the homage of public
enthusiasm which honoured Him with the title of Kabbi ;
since this title did not then imply that one who bore it had
been qualified by any intellectual exercises for an official teaching
position. Isolated, as it seemed, obscure, uncultivated, illiterate,
the Son of Mary did not concern Himself to struggle against
or to reverse what man would deem the crushing disadvantages
of His lot. He did not, like philosophers of antiquity, or like
the active spirits of the middle ages, spend His Life in perpetual
transit between one lecturer of reputation and another, between
this and that focus of earnest and progressive thought. He
was not a Goethe, continually enriching and refining his con
ceptions by contact with a long succession of intellectual friends,
reaching from Lavater to Eckennann. Still less did He,
during His early Manhood, live in any such atmosphere as
that of this place, where interpenetrating all our differences
of age and occupation, and even of conviction, there is the
magnificent inheritance of a common fund of thought, to which,
whether we know it or not, we are all constantly and inevitably
debtors. He mingled neither with great thinkers who could
mould educated opinion, nor with men of gentle blood who
could give its tone to society; He passed those thirty years
as an under-workman in a carpenter's shop ; He lived in what
might have seemed the depths of mental solitude and of social
obscurity ; and then He went forth, not to foment a political
revolution, nor yet to found a local school of evanescent sen
timent, but to proclaim an enduring and world-wide Kingdom
of souls, based upon the culture of a common moral character,
and upon intellectual submission to a common creed.
Christ's isolation, then, is the guarantee of His originality ;
yet had He lived as much in public as He lived in obscurity,
where, let me ask, is the kingdom of heaven anticipated as a
practical project in the ancient world ? What, beyond the inter
change of thought on moral subjects, has the kingdom proclaimed
by our Lord in common with the philosophical schools or coteries
which grouped themselves around Socrates and other teachers
k St. John vii. 15.
in]
no Who could have suggested Christ's 'plan'?
of classical Greece H These schools, indeed, differed from the
kingdom of heaven, not merely in their lack of any pretensions
to supernatural aims or powers, but yet more, in that they only
existed for the sake of a temporary convenience, and that their
members were bound to each other by no necessary ties m.
Again, what was there in any of the sects of Judaism that could
have suggested such a conception as the kingdom of heaven ]
Each and all they diner from it, I will not say in organization
and structure, but in range and compass, in life and action, in
spirit and aim. Or was the kingdom of heaven even traced in
outline by the vague yearnings and aspirations after a better
time, which entered so mysteriously into the popular thought of
the heathen populations in the Augustan agen ] Certainly it was
an answer, complete yet unexpected, to these aspirations. They
did not originate it ; they could not have originated it ; they
primarily pointed to a material rather than to a moral Utopia,
to an idea of improvement which did not enter into the plan of
the Founder of the new kingdom. But you ask if the announce
ment of the kingdom of heaven by our Lord was not really a
continuation of the announcement of the kingdom of heaven by
1 Mr. Lecky makes an observation upon the originality of our Lord's moral
teaching, considered generally, which is well worthy of attention. Rational
ism in Europe, i. p. 338. 'Nothing too, can, as I conceive, be more er
roneous or superficial than the reasonings of those who maintain that
the moral element in Christianity has in it nothing distinctive or peculiar.
The method of this school, of which Bolingbroke may be regarded as the
type, is to collect from the writings of different heathen writers, certain
isolated passages embodying precepts that were inculcated by Christianity ;
and when the collection had become very large the task was supposed to be
accomplished. But the true originality of a system of moral teaching depends
not so much upon the elements of which it is composed, as upon the manner
in which they are fused into a symmetrical whole, upon the proportionate
value that is attached to different qualities, or, to state the same thing by a
single word, upon the type of character that is formed. Now it is quite
certain that the Christian type differs, not only in degree, but in kind from
the Pagan one.' This general observation might legitimately include the
vital differences which sever all merely human schemes of moral association
and co-operation from that of the Founder of the Christian Church. See also
Tulloch on The Christ of the Gospels, p. 190.
m This point is well stated in Ecce Homo, p. g 1 , sqq. The writer observes
that if Socrates were to appear at the present day, he would form no society,
as the invention of printing would have rendered it unnecessary. But the
formation of an organized society was of the very essence of the work of
Christ. I heartily rejoice to recognise the fulness with which this vital
truth is set forth by one from whom serious Churchmen must feel themselves
to be separated by some deep differences of belief and principle.
" Virgil, Eel. iv., Ma, vi. 793, and Suetonius, Vespasianus, iv. 5.
[ LECT.
Its ' originality ' substantial, not verbal. 111
St. John the Baptist! You might go further, and enquire, whether
this proclamation of the kingdom of heaven is not" to be traced
up to the prophecy of Daniel respecting a fifth empire 1 For the
present of course I waive the question which an Apostle 0 would
have raised, as to whether the Spirit That spoke in St. John and
in Daniel was not the Spirit of the Christ Himself. But let us
enquire whether Daniel or St. John do anticipate our Lord's
plan in such a sense as to rob it of its immediate originality.
The Baptist and the prophet foretell the kingdom of heaven.
Be it so. But a name is one thing, and the vivid complete
grasp of an idea is another. We are accustomed to distinguish
with some wholesome severity between originality of phrase and
originality of thought. An intrinsic poverty of thought may at
times succeed in formulating an original expression ; while a
true originality will often, nay generally, welcome a time-
honoured and conventional phraseology, if it can thus secure
currency and acceptance for the truth which it has brought to
light and which it desires to set forth p. The originality of our
Lord's plan lay not in its name, but in its substance. When
St. John said that the kingdom of heaven was at hand a, when
Daniel represented it as a world-wide and imperishable empire,
neither prophet nor Baptist had really anticipated the idea ; one
furnished the name of a coming system, the other a measure of
its greatness. But what was the new institution to be in itself ;
what were to be its controlling laws and principles ; what the
° I St. Peter i. II.
P Pascal, Pense'es, art. vii. 9. (ed. Havet. p. 123) 'Qu'on ne dise pas
que je n'ai rien dit de nouveau ; la disposition des matieres est nouvelle.
Quand on jque a la paume, c'est line mcme balle donton joue l'un et l'autre;
mais l'un la place mieux. J'aimerais autant qu'on me dit que je me
suis servi des mots anciens. Et comme si les mSmes pense'es ne formaient
pas un autre corps de discours par une disposition diffe*rente, aussi bien que
les mflmes mots forment d'autres pense'es par leur differente disposition.'
1 The teaching of St. John Baptist centred around three points: (1) the
call to penitence (St. Matt. hi. 2, 8-10 ; St. Mark i. 4 ; St. Luke iii. 3,
10-14) ; (2) the relative greatness of Christ (St. Matt. iii. 1 1-14 ; St. Mark i.
7 ; St. Luke iii. 16; St. John i. if,, 26, 27, 30- 34); (3) the Judicial (ov rb
■ktvov iv Ttj x«pl avrov, St. Matt. iii. 12; St. Luke iii. 17) and Atoning (tdi
6 ctfivbs tov 0eou, & aipoji* a/jiapTiav tov K6fffxov, St. John i. 29, 36) Work
of Christ. In this way St. John corresponded to prophecy as preparing the
way of the Lord (St. Matt. iii. 3 ; St. Mark i. 3 ; St. Luke iii. 4 ; St. John i.
23 ; Isa. xl. 3) ; but beyond naming the kingdom, the nature of the prepara
tion required for entering it, the supernatural greatness, and two of the
functions of the King, St. John did not anticipate our Lord's disclosures.
St. John's teaching left men quite uninformed as to what the kingdom of
heaven was to be in itself.
Ill]
ii2 Notes of ' originality ' in our Lord's 'plan!
animating spirit of its inhabitants ; what the sources of its life ;
what the vicissitudes of its establishment and triumph ? These
and other elements of His plan are exhibited by our Lord Him
self, in His discourses, His parables, His institutions. That
which had been more or less vague, He made definite ; that which
had been abstract, He threw into a concrete form; that which had
been ideal, He clothed with the properties of working reality;
that which had been scattered over many books and ages,
He brought into a focus. If prophecy supplied Him with some
of the materials which He employed, prophecy could not have
enabled Him to succeed in combining them. He combined them
because He was Himself; His Person supplied the secret of
their combination. His originality is indeed seen in the reality
and life with which He lighted up the language used by men
who had been sent in earlier ages to prepare His way ; but
if His creative thought employed these older materials, it did
not depend on them. He actually gave a practical and ener
getic form to the idea of a strictly independent society of
spiritual beings, with enlightened and purified consciences,
cramped by no national or local bounds of privilege, and destined
to spread throughout earth and heaven1. When He did this,
° Tert. Apol. 37: ' Hesterni sumus, et vestra omnia implevimus, urbes,
insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, pala-
tiura, senatum, forum, sola vobis relinquimus templa.' Cf. de Rossi, Roma
Sotteranea, i. p. 309.
P Tert. adv. Judseos, c. 7 : ' Jam Getulorum varietates, et Maurorum multi
fines, Hispaniarum omnes termini, et Galliarum diversae nationes, et Britan-
norum inaccessa Romania loca, Christo vero subdita, et Sarmatarum, et
Dacorum, et Germanorum, et Scytharum, et abditarum multarum gentium et
provinciarum, et insularum multarum nobis ignotarum, et quae enumerare
minus possumus. In quibus omnibus locis, Christi nomen, qui jam venit,
regnat, utpote ante Quern omnium civitatum porta sunt apertse.'
1 St. Aug. Ep. xlix. n. 3 : ' Quaerimus ergo, ut nobis respondere non
graveris, quam causam forte noveris qua factum est, ut Christus amitteret
haereditatem Suam per orbem terrarum diffusam, et subito in solis Afris, nec
ipsis omnibus remaneret. Etenim ecclesia Catholica est etiam in Africa quia
per omnes terras cam Deus esse voluit et praedixit. Pars autem vestra, qua;
Donati dicitur, non est in omnibus illis locis, in quibus et literae et sermo et
facta apostolica cucurrerunt.' In Ps. lxxxv. n. 14: 'Christo enim tales
maledicunt, qui dicunt, quia periit ecclesia de orbe terrarum, et remansit in
sola Africa.' Compare S. Hieron. adv. Lucifer, torn. iv. pt. ii. p. 298 : 'Si
in Sardinia tantum habet [ecclesiam Christus] nimium pauper factus est.'
And St. Chrys. in Col. Horn. i. n. 2 ; in 1 Cor. Horn, xxxii. n. I.
r In Ps. xliv. (Vulg.) Enarr. n. 24: 'Sacramenta doc,trinae in Unguis
omnibus variis. Alia lingua Afia, alia Syra, alia Grseca, alia Hebraea, alia
ilia et ilia ; faciunt istae lingua; varietatem vestis reginae hujus ; quomodo
autem omnis varietatis vestis in unitate concordat, sic et omnes linguae ad
unam fidem.'
■ Ep. liv. ad Januar. n. 2 : 'Alia vero [sunt] quae per loca terrarum
regionesque variantur, sicuti est quod alii jejunant sabbato, alii non ; alii
quotidie communicant Corpori et Sanguini Domini, alii certis diebus ac-
cipiunt ; alibi nullus dies prsetermittitur, quo non ofFeratur, alibi sabbato
tantum et dominico, alibi tantum dominico ; et si quid aliud hujusmodi
animadverti potest, totum hcc genus rerum libera* habet observationes ; nec
III] _
1 20 Actual area andprospects of the Church.
find an equal welcome within her comprehensive bosom. Yet
contrast the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries with the
Church of the middle ages, or with the Church of our own
day. In the fourth and even in the fifth century, whatever may
have been the activity of individual missionaries, the Church
was still for the most part contained within the limits of the
empire ; and of parts of the empire she had scarcely as yet
taken possession. She was still confronted by powerful sections
of the population, passionately attached for various reasons to
the ancient superstition : nobles such as the powerful Sym-
machus, and orators like the accomplished Libanius, were among
her most earnest opponents. But it is now scarcely less than a
thousand years since Jesus Christ received at least the outward
submission of the whole of Europe ; and from that time to this
His empire has been continually expanding. The newly-dis
covered continents of Australia and America have successively
acknowledged His sway. He is shedding the light of His
doctrine first upon one and then upon another of the islands of
the Pacific. He has beleaguered the vast African continent on
either side with various forms of missionary enterprise. And
although in Asia there are vast, ancient, and highly organized
religions which are still permitted to bid Him defiance, yet
India, China, Tartary, and Kamschatka have within the last few
years witnessed heroic labours and sacrifices for the spread of
His kingdom, which would not have been unworthy of the
purest and noblest enthusiasms of the Primitive Church. Nor
are these efforts so fruitless as the ruling prejudices or the lack
of trustworthy information on such subjects, which are so com
mon in Western Europe, might occasionally suggest*.
Already the kingdom of the Eedeemer may be said to em
brace three continents ; but what are its prospects, even if we
measure them by a strictly human estimate ? Is it not a simple
matter of fact that at this moment the progress of the human
race is entirely identified with the spread of the influence of the
nations of Christendom 1 What Buddhist, or Mohammedan, or
Pagan nation is believed by others, or believes itself, to be able to
f Phil.iv. 13.
s Luthardt, Grundwahrheiten des Christenthums, p. 227: 'Er ist der
Inhalt seiner Lehre.' h 1 Cor. xv. 45. 1 Gal. ii. 20.
Ill]
128 Is the Sermon on the Mount a dead letter?
form and its force to the sincere Christian life. That life is a
loyal homage of the intellect, of the heart, and of the will, to a
Divine King, with Whom will, heart, and intellect are in close
and constant communion, and from Whom there flows forth,
through the Spirit and the Sacraments, that supply of light, of
love, and of resolve, which enriches and ennobles the Christian
soul. My brethren, I am not theorizing or describing any
merely ideal state of things ; I am but putting into words the
inner experience of every true Christian among you ; I am but
exhibiting a set of spiritual circumstances which, as a matter of
course, every true Christian endeavours to realize and make his
own, and which, as a matter of fact, blessed be God ! very many
Christians do realize, to their present peace, and to their eternal
welfare.
Certainly it is not uncommon in our day to be informed, that
'the Sermon on the Mount is a dead letter in Christendom.'
In consequence (so men speak) of the engrossing interest which
Christians have wrongly attached to the discussion of dogmatic
questions, that original draught of essential Christianity, the
Sermon on the Mount, has been wellnigh altogether lost sight
of. Perhaps you yourselves, my brethren, ere now have repeated
some of the current commonplaces on this topic. But have you
endeavoured to ascertain whether it is indeed as you say ? You
remark that you at least have not met with Christians who
seemed to be making any sincere efforts to turn the Sermon on
the Mount into practice. It may be so. But the question is,
where have you looked for them ] Do you expect to meet them
rushing hurriedly along the great highways of life, with the
keen, eager, self-asserting multitude 1 Do you expect, that with
their eye upon the Beatitudes and upon the Cross, they will
throng the roads which lead to worldly success, to earthly
wealth, to temporal honour ? Be assured that those who know
where moral beauty, aye, the highest, is to be found, are not
disappointed, even at this hour, in their search for it. Until
you have looked more carefully, more anxiously than has
probably been the case, for the triumphs of our Lord's work in
Christian souls, you may do well to take upon trust the testi
mony of others. You may at least be sufficiently generous, aye,
and sufficiently reasonable, to believe in the existence at this
present time of the very highest types of Christian virtue. It is
a simple matter of fact that in our day, multitudes of men and
women do lead the life of the Beatitudes ; they pray, they fast,
they do alms to their Father Which seeth in secret. These are
[ LECT.
Is the Sermon on the Mount a dead letter? 129
Christians who take no thought for the morrow. These are
Christians whose righteousness does exceed that worldly and
conventional standard of religion, which knows no law save the
corrupt public opinion of the hour, and which inherits in every
generation the essential spirit of the Scribes and Pharisees.
These are Christians who shew forth the moral creativeness of
Jesus Christ in their own deeds and words ; they are living
witnesses to His solitary and supreme power of changing the
human heart. They were naturally proud ; He has enabled
them to be sincerely humble. They were, by the inherited
taint of their nature, impure ; He has in them shed honour upon
the highest forms of chastity. They too were, as in his natural
state man ever is, suspicious of and hostile to their fellow-men,
unless connected with them by blood, or by country, or by interest.
But Jesus Christ has taught them the tenderest and most
practical forms of love for man viewed simply as man ; He has
inspired them with the only true, that is, the Christian, huma-
nitarianism. Think not that the moral energy of the Christian
life was confined to the Church of the first centuries. At this
moment, there are millions of souls in the world, that are pure,
humble, and loving. But for Jesus Christ our Lord, these
millions would have been proud, sensual, selfish. At this very
day, and even in atmospheres where the taint of scepticism dulls
the brightness of Christian thought, and enfeebles the strength
of Christian resolution, there are to be found men, whose intel
ligence gazes on Jesus with a faith so clear and strong, whose
affection clings to Him with so trustful and so warm an embrace,
whose resolution has been so disciplined and braced to serve
Him by a persevering obedience, that, beyond a doubt, they
would joyfully die for Him, if by shedding their blood they could
better express their devotion to His Person, or lead others to
know and to love Him more. Blessed be God, that portion of
His one Fold in which He has placed us, the Church of England,
has not lacked the lustre of such lives as these. Such assuredly
was Ken ; such was Bishop Wilson ; such have been many whose
names have never appeared in the page of history. Has not one
indeed quite lately passed from among us, the boast and glory of
this our University, great as a poet, greater still, it may be, as
a scholar and a theologian, greatest of all as a Christian saint \
Certainly to know him, even slightly, was inevitably to know
that he led a life distinct from, and higher than, that of common
men. To know him well, was to revere and to love in him the
manifested beauty of his Lord's presence ; it was to trace the
m] K
130 Social results of Christianity.
sensibly perpetuated power of the Life, of the Teaching, of the
Cross of Jesus k.
4. On the other hand, look at certain palpable effects of our
Lord's work which lie on the very face of human society. If
society, apart from the Church, is more kindly and humane than
in heathen times, this is due to the work of Christ on the hearts
of men. The era of 'humanity' is the era of the Incarnation.
The sense of human brotherhood, the acknowledgment of the
sacredness of human rights, the recognition of that particular
stock of rights which appertains to every human being, is a cre
ation of Christian dogma. It has radiated from the heart of the
Christian Church into the society of the outer world. Chris
tianity is the power which first gradually softened slavery, and
is now finally abolishing it. Christianity has proclaimed the
dignity of poverty, and has insisted upon the claims of the poor,
with a success proportioned to the sincerity which has welcomed
her doctrines among the different peoples of Christendom The
hospital is an invention of Christian philanthropy1; the active
charity of the Church of the fourth century forced into the Greek
language a word for which Paganism had had no occasion. The
degradation of woman in the Pagan world has been exchanged
for a position of special privilege and honour, accorded to her
by the Christian nations. The sensualism which Pagans mistook
for love has been placed under the ban of all true Christian
feeling; and in Christendom, love is now the purest of moral
impulses ; it is the tenderest, the noblest, the most refined of
the movements of the soul. The old, the universal, the natural
feeling of bitter hostility between races, nations, and classes of
men is denounced by Christianity. The spread of Christian
truth inevitably breaks down the ferocities of national prejudice,
and prepares the world for that cosmopolitanism which, we are
told, is its most probable future. International law had no real
existence until the nations, taught by Christ, had begun to feel
the bond of brotherhood. International law is now each year
becoming more and more powerful in regulating the affairs of the
civilized world. And if we are sorrowfully reminded that the
prophecy of a world-wide peace within the limits of Christ's
kingdom has not yet been realized ; if Christian lands, in our
* The author of the Christian Year had passed to his rest during the in
terval that elapsed between the delivery of the second and the third of these
lectures, on March 30, 1866.
1 Hallam's Middle Ages, chap. ix. part i. vol. ii. p. 365 .
[ LECT.
Perpetuity of the Church. 131
day as before, are reddened by streams of Christian blood ; yet
the utter disdain of the plea of right, the high-handed and
barbarous savagery, which marked the wars of heathendom, have
given way to sentiments in which justice can at least obtain
a hearing, and which compassion and generosity, drawing their
inspirations from the Cross, have at times raised to the level of
chivalry.
But neither would any improvements in man's social life, nor
even the regenerate lives of individual Christians, of themselves,
have realized our Lord's ' plan' in its completeness m. His design
was to found a society or Church ; individual sanctity and social
amelioration are only effects radiating from the Church. The
Church herself is the true proof of His success. After the lapse
of eighteen centuries the kingdom of Christ is here, and it is
still expanding. How fares it generally with a human under
taking when exposed to the action of a long period of time? The
idea which was its very soul is thrown into the shade by some
other idea ; or it is warped, or distorted, or diverted from its
true direction, or changed by some radical corruption. In the
end it dies out from among the living thoughts of men, and
takes its place in the tomb of so much forgotten speculation, on
the shelves of a library. Within a short lifetime we may follow
many a popular moral impulse from its cradle to its grave.
From the era of its young enthusiasm, we mark its gradual
entry upon the stage of fixed habit ; from this again we pass to
its day of lifeless formalism, and to the rapid progress of its de
cline. But the Society founded by Jesus Christ is here, still
animated by its original idea, still carried forward by the moral
impulse which sustained it in its infancy. If Christian doctrine
m A reviewer, who naturally must dissent from parts of the teaching of
these lectures, hut of whose generosity and fairness the lecturer is deeply
sensible, reminds him that ' Our Lord came to carry out the counsel of the
Eternal Father ; and that counsel was, primarily, to establish, through His
sacrificial death, an economy of mercy, under which justification and spiritual
and eternal life should be realized by all who should penitently rely on Him.'
St. John iii. t6, vi. 38-40. Undoubtedly. But this 'economy of mercy
included the establishment of a world-embracing church, within which it was
to be dispensed. Col. i. IC—14. Our Lord founded His Church, not by way
of achieving a vast social feat or victory, but with a view to the needs of the
human soul, which He came from heaven to save. Nevertheless the Church
is not related to our Lord's design as an 'inseparable accident.' It is that
design itself, viewed on its historical and social side; it is the form which,
so far as we know, His redemptive work necessarily took, and which He Him
self founded as being the imperishable result of His Incarnation and Death.
St. Matt. xvi. 18. Cf. Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine, Dec. 1867, p. 1086.
in] k 2
133 How to accountfor tJie success of Christ's 'plan!
has, in particular branches of the Church, been overlaid by an
encrustation of foreign and earthly elements, its body and sub
stance is untouched in each great division of the Catholic
Society; and much of it, we rejoice to know, is retained by com
munities external to the Holy Fold. If intimate union with the
worldly power of the State (as especially in England during
the last century) has sometimes seemed to chill the warmth of
Christian love, and to substitute a heartless externalism for the
spiritual life of a Christian brotherhood ; yet again and again
the flame of that Spirit Whom the Son of Man sent to 'glorify'
Himself, has burst up from the depths of the living heart of the
Church, and has kindled among a generation of sceptics or sen
sualists a pure and keen enthusiasm which confessors and martyrs
might have recognised as their own. The Church of Christ in
sooth carries within herself the secret forces which renew her
moral vigour, and which will, in God's good time, visibly re
assert her essential unity. Her perpetuated existence among
ourselves at this hour bears a witness to the superhuman powers
of her Founder, not less significant than that afforded by the
intensity of the individual Christian life, or by the territorial
range of the Christian empire.
III. The work of Jesus Christ in the world is a patent fact,
and it is still in full progress before our eyes. The question
remains, How are we to account for its success ?
1. If this question is asked with respect to the ascendancy
of such a national religion as the popular Paganism of Greece,
it is obvious to refer to the doctrine of the prehistoric mythus.
The Greek religious creed was, at least in the main, a creation of
the national imagination at a period when reflection and ex
perience could scarcely have existed. It was recommended to
subsequent generations, not merely by the indefinable charm of
poetry which was thrown around it, not merely by the antiquity
which shrouded its actual origin, but by its accurate sympathy
with the genius as with the degradations of the gifted race which
had produced it. But of late years we have heard less of the
attempt to apply the doctrine of the mythus to a series of well-
ascertained historical events, occurring in the mid-day light of
history, and open to the hostile criticism of an entire people.
The historical imagination, steadily applied to the problem, re
fuses to picture the unimaginable process by which such stupen
dous ' myths ' as those of the Gospel could have been festooned
around the simple history of a humble preacher of righteousness11.
» Luthardt, Grundwahrheiten des Christenthums, p. 234.
[ LECT.
Not parallel to the Success offalse religions. 133
The early Christian Church does not supply the intellectual
agencies that could have been equal to any such task. As
Rousseau has observed, the inventor of such a history would
have been not less wonderful than its Subject 0 ; and the utter
reversal of the ordinary laws of a people's mental development
would have been itself a miracle. Nor was it to be anticipated
that a religion which was, as the mythical school asserts, the
' creation of the Jewish race,' would have made itself a home, at
the very beginning of its existence, among the Greek and the
Roman peoples of the Western world. If however we are re
ferred to the upgrowth and spread of Buddhism, as to a pheno
menon which may rival and explain the triumph of Christianity,
it may be sufficient to reply that the writers who insist upon this
parallel are themselves eminently successful in analysing the
purely natural causes of the success of Cakya-Mouni. They
dwell among other points on the rare delicacy and fertility of
the Aryan imagination p, and on the absence of any strong
counter-attraction to arrest the course of the new doctrine in
Central and South-eastern Asia. Nor need we fear to admit,
that, mingled with the darkest errors, Buddhism contained
elements of truth so undeniably powerful as to appeal with
great force to some of the noblest aspirations of the soul of
man 1. But Buddhism, vast as is the population which professes
it, has not yet made its way into a second continent ; while the
religion of Jesus Christ is to be found in every quarter of the
globe. As for the rapid and widespread growth of the religion
of the False Prophet, it may be explained, partly by the practical
genius of Mohammed, partly by the rare qualities of the Arab
race. If it had not claimed to be a new revelation, Moham
medanism might have passed for a heresy adroitly constructed
out of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Its doctrine re
specting Jesus Christ reaches the level of Socinianism ; and, as
against Polytheism, its speculative force lay in its insistance upon
the truth of the Divine Unity. A religion which consecrated
0 The well-known words of the fimile are these : 'Jamais des auteurs juifs
n'eussent trouve" ce ton ni cette morale ; et l'fivangile a des caracteres de
verite" si grands, si frappants, si parfaitement inimitables, que l'inventeur en
serait plus dtonnant que le he'ros.'
P Cf. on this point the interesting Essay of M. Taine, fitudes Critiques,
p. 321.
1 Cf. Saint-Hilaire, Le Bouddha et sa Eeligion, pp. 142-148. Yet M. St.
Hilaire describes Buddhism as presenting ' un spiritualisme sans (me, une
vertu sans devoir, une morale sans liberty une charitd sans amour, un monde
sans nature et sans Dieu.' Ib. p. 182.
Ill]
134 Success offalse religions and of Christianity.
sensual indulgence could bid high for an Asiatic popularity
against the Church of Christ; and Mohammed delivered the
scymetar, as the instrument of his apostolate, into the hands of
a people whose earlier poetry shews it to have been gifted with
intellectual fire and strength of purpose of the highest order.
But it has not yet been asserted that the Church fought her
way, sword in hand, to the throne of Constantine ; nor were the
first Christians naturally calculated to impose their will forcibly
upon the civilized world, had they ever desired to do so. Still
less is a parallel to the work of Jesus Christ to be found in that
of Confucius. Confucius indeed was not a warrior like Moham
med, nor a mystic like Qakya-Mouni ; he appealed neither to
superior knowledge nor to miraculous power. Confucius col
lected, codified, enforced, reiterated all that was most elevated in
the moral traditions of China ; he was himself deeply penetrated
with the best ethical sentiments of Chinese antiquity1. His
success was that of an earnest patriot who was also, as a patriot,
an antiquarian moralist. But he succeeded only in China, nor
could his work roll back that invasion of Buddhism which took
place in the first century of the Christian era. Confucianism ,
is more purely national than Buddhism and Mohamme
danism ; and in this respect it contrasts more sharply with
the world-wide presence of Christianity. Yet if Confucianism is
unknown beyond the frontiers of China, it is equally true that
neither Buddhism nor Mohammedanism have done more than
spread themselves over territories contiguous to their original
homes. Whereas, almost within the first century of her exist
ence, the Church had her missionaries in Spain on one hand,
and, as it seems, in India on the other ; and her Apostle pro
claimed that his Master's cause was utterly independent of all
distinctions of race and nation8. In our own day, Christian
charity is freely spending its energies and its blood in efforts to
carry the work of Jesus Christ into regions where He has been
so stoutly resisted by these ancient and highly organized forms
of error. Yet in the streets of London or of Paris we do not
hear of the labours of Moslem or Buddhist missionaries, instinct
with any such sense of a duty and mission to all the world in the
name of truth, as that which animates, at this very hour, those
heroic pioneers of Christendom whom Europe has sent to Delhi
or to Pekin *.
• Cf. Max Miiller, Chips from a German Workshop, vol. i. p. 308.
• Col. iii. 11 ; Rom. i. 14.
• We are indeed told that ' if we were to judge from the history of the last
[ LECT.
Gibbon's account of the success ofJesus Christ. 135
2. From the earliest ages of the Church, the rapid progress
of Christianity in the face of apparently insurmountable diffi
culties, has attracted attention, on the score of its high evidential
value u. The accomplished but unbelieving historian of the De
cline and Fall of the Roman Empire undertook to furnish the
scepticism of the last century with a systematized and altogether
natural account of the spread of Christianity v. The five ' causes '
which he instances as sufficient to explain the work of Jesus
Christ in the world are, the ' zeal ' of the early Christians, the
' doctrine of a future life,' the ' miraculous powers ascribed to
the primitive Church,' the ' pure and austere morals of the first
Christians,' and ' the union and discipline of the Christian
republic' But surely each of these causes points at once and
irresistibly to a cause beyond itself x. If the zeal of the first
Christians was, as Gibbon will have it, a fanatical habit of mind
inherited from Judaism, how came it not merely to survive, but
to acquire a new intensity, when the narrow nationalism which
provoked it in the Jew had been wholly renounced ? What was
it that made the first Christians so zealous amid surrounding
lassitude, so holy amid encompassing pollution 1 Why should
the doctrine of a life to come have had a totally different effect
when proclaimed by the Apostles from any which it had had
when taught by Socrates or by Plato, or by other thinkers of the
Pagan world ] How came it that a few peasants and tradesmen
could erect a world-wide organization, sufficiently elastic to
adapt itself to the genius of races the most various, sufficiently
uniform to be everywhere visibly conservative of its unbroken
identity 1 If the miracles of the early Church, or any one of
them, were genuine, how can they avail to explain the natural-
ness of the spread of Christianity ? If they were all false, how
thousand years, it would appear to shew that the permanent area of Chris
tianity is conterminous with that of Western civilization, and that its doctrines
could find acceptance only among those who, by incorporation into the Greek
and Latin races, have adopted their system of life and morals.' International
Policy, p. 508. The Anglo-Positivist school however is careful to explain
that it altogether excludes Russia from any share in ' Western civilization ; '
Russia, it appears, is quite external to 'the West.' Ibid. pp. 14-17, 58,
95. &c-
"St. Justin. Dialog, cum Tryph. 117,121; St. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. i. c. 10,
§ 2 ; Tertull. adv. Judseos, vii ; Apolog. 37 ; Orig. contr. Celsum, i. 26,
ii. 79. Cf. Freppel, Examen Critique, p. 110.
v No reader of Gibbon will be misled by the sarcasm of the opening para
graphs of Decl. and Fall, c. xv. Would that Gibbon had really supposed
himself to be describing only the 'secondary causes' of the progress of Chris
tianity ! * Eclipse of Faith, p. 186.
Ill]
136 Recent theory of the stcccess of our Lord.
extraordinary is this spectacle of a moral triumph, such as even
Gibbon acknowledges that of Christianity to be, brought about by
means of a vast and odious imposition ! Gibbon's argument would
have been more conclusive if the ' causes ' to which he points
could themselves have been satisfactorily accounted for in a
natural way. As it was, the historian of Lausanne did an in
direct service to Christendom, of that kind for which England
has sometimes been indebted to the threatening preparations of
a great military neighbour. Gibbon indicated very clearly the
direction which would be taken by modern assailants of the
faith ; but he is not singular in having strengthened the cause
which he sought to ruin, by furnishing an indirect demonstration
of the essentially supernatural character of the spread of the
Gospel.
3. But you remind me that if the sceptical artillery of Gibbon
is out of date, yet the ' higher criticism' of our day has a more
delicate, and, as is presumed, a more effective method of stating
the naturalistic explanation of the work of Jesus Christ in the
world. Jesus Christ, you say, was born at a time when the
world itself forced victory upon Him, or at least ensured for
Him an easy triumph y. The wants and aspirations of a worn-
out civilization, the dim but almost universal presentiment of
a coming Eestorer of mankind, the completed organization of a
great world-empire, combined to do this. You urge that it is
possible so to correspond to the moral and intellectual drift of
a particular period, that nothing but a perverse stupidity can
escape a success which is all but inevitable. You add that Jesus
Christ ' had this chance ' of appearing at a critical moment in
the history of humanity ; and that when the world was ripe for
His religion, He and His Apostles had just adroitness enough
not to be wholly unequal to the opportunity. The report of His
teaching and of His Person was carried on the crest of one of
those waves of strange mystic enthusiasm, which so often during
the age of the Caesars rolled westward from Asia towards the
capital of the world ; and though the Founder of Christianity, it
is true, had perished in the surf, His work, you hold, in the
nature of things, could not but survive Him.
1 Renan, Les Ap8tres, pp. 302, 303. M. Renan is of opinion that ' la
conversion du monde aux ide*cs juives (!) et chre'tiennes e'tait inevitable;'
his only astonishment is that ' cette conversion se soit fait si lentement et si
tard.' On the other hand, the new faith is said to have made ' de proche en
proche cFMonnantes progres' (Ibid. p. 215) ; and, with reference to Antioch,
'on titonne des progres accomplis en si pen de temps.' Ibid. p. 236.
[ LECT.
Was our Lord's triumph due to Jtidaism ? T37
(n) In this representation, my brethren, there is a partial
truth which I proceed to recognise. It is true that the world
was weary and expectant ; it is true that the political fabric of
the great empire afforded to the Gospel the same facilities for
self-extension as those which it offered to the religion of Osiris,
or to the fable of Apollonius Tyanseus. But those favourable
circumstances are only what we should look for at the hands of
a Divine Providence, when the true religion was to be introduced
into the world ; and they are altogether unequal to account for
the success of Christianity. It is alleged that Christianity cor
responded to the dominant moral and mental tendencies z of the
time so perfectly, that those tendencies secured its triumph.
But is this accurate % Christianity was cradled in Judaism ;
but was the later Judaism so entirely in harmony with the
temper and aim of Christianity i Was the age of the Zealots, of
Judas the Gaulonite, of Theudas, likely to welcome the spiritual
empire of such a teacher as our Lord a 1 Were the moral dispo
sitions of the Jews, their longings for a political Messiah, their
fierce legalism, their passi'onate jealousy for the prerogatives of
their race, calculated—I do not say to further the triumph of
the Church, but —to enter even distantly into her distinctive
spirit and doctrines 1 Did not the Synagogue persecute Jesus
to death, when it had once discerned the real character of His
teaching ? It may be argued that the favourable dispositions in
question which made the success of Christianity practically
inevitable were to be found among the Hellenistic Jews b. The
Hellenistic Jews were less cramped by national prejudices, less
strictly observant of the Mosaic ceremonies, more willing to
welcome Gentile proselytes than was the case with the Jews of
Palestine. Be it so. But the Hellenistic Jews were just as
opposed as the Jews of Palestine to the capital truths of Chris
tianity. A crucified Messiah, for instance, was not a more wel
come doctrine in the synagogues of Corinth or of Thessalonica
than in those of Jerusalem. Never was Judaism broader, more
elastic, more sympathetic with external thought, more disposed
to make concessions than in Philo Judseus, the most representa
tive of Hellenistic Jews. Yet Philo insists as stoutly as any
Palestinian Kabbi upon the perpetuity of the law of Moses. As
long, he says, as the human race shall endure, men shall carry
■ Renan, Les Ap&tres, c. 19, pp. 366, sqq.
* Freppel, Examen Critique^ p. 114.
* Renan, Les Ap6tres, c. 19, p. 113.
Ill]
138 Was Christ's triumph due to Jewish sympathy?
their offerings to the temple of Jerusalem 0. Indeed in the first
age of Christianity the Jews, both Palestinian and Hellenistic,
illustrate, unintentionally of course, but very remarkably, the
supernatural law of the expansion of the Church. They perse
cute Christ in His members, and yet they submit to Him ; they
are foremost in enriching the Church with converts, after en
riching her with martyrs. Wherever the preachers of the Gospel
appear, it is the Jews who are their fiercest persecutors d ; the
Jews rouse against them the passions of the Pagan mob, or
appeal to the prejudice of the Pagan magistrate6. Yet the
synagogue is the mission-station from which the Church's action
originally radiates ; the synagogue, as a rule, yields their first
spiritual conquests to the soldiers of the Cross. In the Acts of
the Apostles we remark on the one hand the hatred and opposi
tion with which the Jew met the advancing Gospel, on the other,
the signal and rapid conquests of the Gospel among the ranks of
the Jewish population f. The former fact determines the true
significance of the latter. Men do not persecute systems which
answer to their real sympathies ; St. Paul was not a Christian
at heart, and without intending it, before his conversion. The
Church triumphed in spite of the dominant tendencies and the
fierce opposition of Judaism, both in Palestine and elsewhere ;
she triumphed by the force of her inherent and Divine vitality.
The process whereby the Gospel won its way among the Jewish
people was typified in St. Paul's experience ; the passage from
the traditions of the synagogue to the faith of Pentecost cost
nothing less than a violent moral and intellectual wrench, such
as could be achieved only by a supernatural force, interrupting
0 De Monarchic, lib. ii. § 3, ii. 224 : i<p' Strop yhp to ivSpdirav yivos Sia-
ficvei, ael zeal at irpSvoSot rod Upov tpvKax&fj&oj'Tai <jvv$iaivaivi£ovaai -navrl tu
k6<th<p : quoted by Freppel.
d How far St. Paul thought that Judaism contributed to the triumph of
the Church might appear from 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16. Compare Acts xiii. 50,
xiv. 5, 19, xvii. 5, 13, xviii. 12, xix. 9, xxii. 2t, 22.
" Renan, Les Ap&tres, p. 143 : ' Ce qu'il importe, en tout cas, de remar-
quer, e'est qu^ lMpoque oil nous sommes, les persecuteurs du Christianisme
ne sont pas les Romains ; ce sont les Juifs orthodoxes. . . C'e'tait Rome,
ainsi que nous l'avons deja plusieurs fois remarque, qui empgehait le Juda'isme
de se livrer pleinement a ses instincts d'intolerance, et dMtouffer les de--
veloppements libres qui se produisaient dans son sein. Toute diminution de
l'autorite" juive e'tait un bienfait pour la secte naissante.' (p. 251.) See
Martyr. St. Polyc. c 13.
' Acts vi. This one text disposes of M. Renan's assertion as to the
growth of the Church, that 'les orthodoxes rigides s'y pr^taient peu.'
Apdtres, p. 113.
[ LKCT.
Was Christ's triumph due to Pagan aspirations? 139
the old stream of thought and feeling and introducing a new
one.
(/3) But if success was not forced upon the Christian Church
by the dispositions and attitude of Judaism ; can it be said that
Paganism supplies us with the true explanation of the triumph
of the Gospel 1 What then were those intellectual currents,
those moral ideals, those movements, those aspirations, discover
able in the Paganism of the age of the Csesars, which were in
such effective alliance with the doctrine and morality of the New
Testament ? What was the general temper of Pagan intellect,
but a self-asserting, cynical scepticism 1 Pagan intellect speaks
in orators like CiceroS, publicly deriding the idea of rewards and
punishments hereafter, and denying the intervention of a higher
Power in the affairs of men*1 ; or it speaks in statesmen like
Csesar, proclaiming from his place in the Koman senate that the
soul does not exist after death i ; or in historians like Tacitus,
repudiating with self-confident disdain the idea of a providential
government of the world J; or in poets like Horace, making
profession of the practical Atheism of the school of Epicurus, it
is hard to say, whether in jest or in earnest k; or in men of
science like Strabo1 and Pliny m, maintaining that religion is
a governmental device for keeping the passions of the lower
orders under restraint, and that the soul's immortality is a mere
dream or nursery-story. ' Unbelief in the official religion,' says
M. Eenan, 'was prevalent throughout the educated class. The very
statesmen who most ostentatiously upheld the public worship of
the empire made very amusing epigrams at its expense n.' What
was the moral and social condition of Eoman Paganism1!
Modern unbelief complains that St. Paul has characterized the
social morality of the Pagan world in terms of undue severity 0.
s Cicero however, in his speculative moods, was the 'only Roman who
undertook to rest a real individual existence of souls after death on philo
sophical grounds.' Diillinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, bk. viii. § 3.
h Cic. pro Cluentio, c. 61 ; De Nat. Deor. iii. 32 ; De Off. iii. 28 ; De
Divin. ii. 17.
1 Sallust. Catilin. 50-52.
i Tacitus, Ann. xvi. 33, vi. 22. Yet see Hist. i. 3, iv. 78.
k Hor. Sat. i. 5, 100, sq. ; cf. Lucret. v. 83, vi. 57, sq.
1 Geogr. i. c. 2 ; cf. Polyb. Hist. Gen. vi. 56.
m Plin. vii. 55.
» Renan, Les Ap6tres, pp. 340, 341.
0 Ibid. p. 309, note 1 : ' L'opinion beaucoup trop severe de Saint Paul
(Rom. i. 24 et suiv.) s'explique de la meme maniere. Saint Paul ne cormais-
sait pas la haute sociHS Romaine. Ce sont lb,, d'ailleurs, de ces invectives
III]
140 Moral characteristics of the Pagan world
Yet St. Paul does not exceed the specific charges of Tacitus, of
Suetonius, of Juvenal, of Seneca, that is to say, of writers who,
at least, had no theological interest in misrepresenting or exagge
rating the facts which they deploreP. When Tacitus summarizes
the moral condition of Paganism by his exhaustive phrase
' corrumpere et corrumpi,' he more than covers the sorrowing
invective of the Apostle. Indeed our modern historian of the
Apostolic age, who sees nothing miraculous in the success of the
Gospel i, has himself characterized the moral condition of the
Pagan world in terms yet more severe than those of the Apostle
whom he condemns. According to M. Renan, Eome under the
Ceesars 'became a school of immorality and cruelty1;' it was a
'very hell8;' 'the reproach that Rome had poisoned the world
at large, the Apocalyptic comparison of Pagan Rome to a prosti
tute who had poured forth upon the earth the wine of her
immoralities, was in many respects a just comparison4.' Nor
was the moral degradation of Paganism confined to the capital
comme en font les pre'dicateurs, et qu'il ne faut jamais prendre a la lettre.'
Do the Satires of Juvenal lead us to suppose that if St. Paul had ' known
the high society of Rome,' he would have used a less emphatic language ?
And is it a rule with preachers, whether Apostolic or post-Apostolic, not to
mean what they say ?
p Juvenal, Sat. i. 87, ii. 37, iii. 62, vi. 293. Seneca, Epist. xcvii. ; De
Benefic. i. 9, iii. 16. Tacitus, Hist. i. 2 ; Germ. xix. See other quotations
in Wetstein, Nov. Test, in loc. It may be that Tacitus, in his affection for
the old regime of the republic, was tempted to exaggerate the sins of the
empire, and that Juvenal dwelt upon the vices of the capital with somewhat
of the narrow prejudice of provincialism. Still, after allowing for this, there
is a groundwork of fact in these representations which amply justifies
St. Paul.
4 Renan, Les Ap8tres, p. 366 : ' Tel e"tait le monde que les missionaires
chre'tiens entreprirent de convertir. On doit voir maintenant, ce me semble,
qu'une telle entreprise ne fut pas une folie, et que sa reussite ne fut pas un
miracle.'
r Ibid. p. 30;.
• Ibid. p. 3 10 : ' L'esprit de vertige et de cruaute" de'bordait alors, et faisait
de Rome un veritable enfer.' P. 317 : 'A Rome, il est vrai, tous les vices
s'affichaient avec un cynisme reVoltant ; les spectacles surtout avaient intro-
duit une affreuse corruption.' This statement is not an exaggeration. See
Dollinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, bk. ix. pt. ii. § 3, 4, pp. 704-721.
1 Ibid. p. 325: 'Le reproche d'avoir empoisonne' la terre, l'assimilation de
Rome a une courtisane qui a verse' au monde le vin de son immorality e'tait
juste a beaucoup d'e'gards.' Yet M. Renan is so little careful about contra
dicting himself that he elsewhere says, ' Le monde, a T^poque Romaine, ac-
complit un progres de morality et subit une decadence scientifique.' (p. 3 26.)
The nature of this progress seems to have been somewhat Epicurean : ' Le
monde s'assouplissait, perdait sa rigeur antique, acquerait de la mollesse, et
de la sensibility.' (p. 318.)
[ LECT.
contrasted with the teaching of the Gospel. 141
of the great empire. The provinces were scarcely purer than
the capital. Each province poured its separate contribution of
moral filth into the great store which the increasing centraliza
tion of the empire had accumulated in the main reservoir at
Eome ; each province in turn received its share of this recipro
cated corruption D. In particular, the East, that very portion of
the empire in which the Gospel took its rise, was the main
source of the common infection v. Antioch was itself a centre of
moral putrefaction w. Egypt was one of the most corrupt
countries in the world ; and the same account might be given
generally of those districts and cities of the empire in which the
Church first made her way, of Greece, and Asia Minor, and
Roman Africa, of Ephesus and Corinth, of Alexandria and Car
thage. ' The middle of the first century of our era was, in point
of fact, one of the worst epochs of ancient history x.'
But was such an epoch, such a world, such a 'civilization'
as this calculated to ' force success ' on an institution like
'the kingdom of heaven,' or on a doctrine such as that of
the New Testament? If indeed Christianity had been an 'idyll'
or 'pastoral,' the product of the simple peasant life and of
the bright sky of Galilee, there is no reason why it should
not have attracted a momentary interest in literary circles,
although it certainly would have escaped from any more serious
trial at the hands of statesmen than an unaffected indifference
to its popularity. But what was the Gospel as it met the
eye and fell upon the ear of Roman Paganism? 'We preach,'
said the Apostle, ' Christ Crucified, to the Jews an offence,
and to the Greeks a folly y.' ' I determined not to know any
thing among you Corinthians, save Jesus Christ, and Him
* Les Apdtres, p. 326 : 'La province valait micux que Rome, ou plut6t
les elements impurs qui de toutes parts s'amassaient a Rome, comme en un
egottt, avaient forme' lk un foyer d'infection.'
» Ibid. p. 305 : ' Le mal venait surtout de l'Orient, de ces flatteurs de bas
dtage, de ces homines infames que l'figypte et la Syrie envoyaient a Rome.'
P. 306 : ' Les plus choquantes ignominies de l'empire, telles que l'apothe'ose
de l'empereur, sa divinisation de son vivant, venaient de l'Orient, et surtout
de l'figypte, qui e'tait alors un des pays les plus corrumpus de l'univers.'
w Ibid. p. 3 18 : 'La le'gerete' Syrienne, le charlatanisme Babylonien, toutes
les impostures de l'Asie, se confondant a cette limite des deux mondes avaient
fait d'Antioche la capitale du mensonge, la sentine de toutes les infamies.'
P. 219 : ' L'avilissement des ilmes y e'tait effroyable. Le propre de ces foyers
de putrefaction morale, c'est d'amener toutes les races au mime niveau.'
« Ibid. p. 343.
f 1 Cor. i. 23 : ijfitTs KvpvffffOfKv Xptovbv ivTavpovncvoy, 'lovtialots ply
(TKa.vZa.Koi/, "EWtjcl 8e uwplav.
Ill]
143 The Spirit of Paganism and Jestis Crucified.
Crucified2.' Here was a truth linked inextricably with other
truths equally 'foolish' in the apprehension of Pagan intellect,
equally condemnatory of the moral degradation of Pagan life.
In the preaching of the Apostles, Jesus Crucified confronted the
intellectual cynicism, the social selfishness, and the sensualist
degradation of the Pagan world. To its intellect He said,
' I am the truth a ; ' He bade its proud self-confidence bow
before His intellectual Eoyalty. To its selfish, heartless society,
careful only for bread and amusement, careless of the agonies
which gave interest to the amphitheatre, He said, 'A new
commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another,
as I have loved youV Disinterested love of slaves, of bar
barians, of political enemies, of social rivals, love of man as
man, was to be a test of true discipleship. And to the sen
suality, so gross, and yet often so polished, which was the
very law of individual Pagan life, He said, 'If any man will
come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross
daily, and follow Me 0 ' If thine eye offend thee, pluck it
out and cast it from thee; it is better for thee that one of
thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body
should be cast into helld.' Sensuality was to be dethroned,
not by the negative action of a prudential abstinence from
indulgence, but by the strong positive force of self-mortification.
Was such a doctrine likely, of its own' weight and without
any assistance from on high, to win its way to acceptance6?
Is it not certain that debased souls are so far from aspiring
naturally towards that which is holy, elevated and pure, that
they feel towards it only hatred and repulsion ] Certainly Eome
was unsatisfied with her old national idolatries ; but if she
turned her eyes towards the East, it was not to welcome
the religion of Jesus, but the impure rites of Isis and Serapis,
of Mithra and Astarte. The Gospel came to her unbidden,
in obedience to no assignable attraction in Roman society,
but simply in virtue of its own expansive, world-embracing
force. Certainly Christianity answered to the moral wants
of the world, as it really answers at this moment to the
' 1 Cor. ii. 2 : ov ytitp txpiva toO eiSeVcu n Iv 6/i7i>, el M^J 'Itjo-oSv Xpurrdf,
koI ravrov idTavpunivov. " St. John xiv. 6.
b Ibid. xiii. 34. « St. Matt. xvi. 24 ; St. Mark viii. 34,
d St. Matt, xviii. 9 ; St. Mark ix. 47.
8 M. Renan himself observes that 'la degradation des &mes en figypte
y rendait rares, d'ailleurs, les aspirations qui ouvrirent partout (!) au
christianisme de si faciles acces.' Les Ap6tres, p. 284.
[ LECT.
Attitude of Pagan Society towards the Church. 143
true moral wants of all human beings, however unbelieving
or immoral they may be. The question is, whether the world
so clearly recognised its real wants as forthwith to embrace
Christianity. The Physician was there ; but did the patient
know the nature of his own malady sufficiently well not to
view the presence of the Physician as an intrusion? Was it
likely that the old Boman society, with its intellectual pride,
its social heartlessness, and its unbounded personal self-indul
gence, should be enthusiastically in love with a religion which
made intellectual submission, social unselfishness, and personal
mortification, its very fundamental laws? The history of the
three first centuries is the answer to that question. The
kingdom of God was no sooner set up in the Pagan world
than it found itself surrounded by all that combines to make
the progress of a doctrine or of a system impossible. The
thinkers were opposed to it : they denounced it as a dream
of folly f. The habits and passions of the people were opposed
to it : it threatened somewhat rudely to interfere with them.
There were venerable institutions, coming down from a distant
antiquity, and gathering around them the stable and thoughtful
elements of society : these were opposed to it, as to an audacious
innovation, as well as from an instinctive perception that it
might modify or destroy themselves. National feeling was
opposed to it : it flattered no national self-love ; it was to
be the home of human kind ; it was to embrace the world ;
and as yet the nation was the highest conception of associated
life to which humanity had reached. Nay, religious feeling
itself was opposed to it ; for religious feeling had been enslaved
by ancient falsehoods. There were worships, priesthoods, be
liefs, in long-established possession ; and they were not likely
to yield without a struggle. Picture to yourselves the days
when the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter was still thronged
with worshippers, while often the Eucharist could only be
celebrated in the depths of the Catacombs. It was a time
when all the administrative power of the empire was steadily
concentrated upon the extinction of the Name of Christ. What
were then to a human eye the future prospects of the kingdom
of God ? It had no allies, like the sword of the Mahommedan,
' Tac. Ann. xv. 44 : ' Repressa in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rureus
erumpebat.' Suetonius, Claudius, xxv. ; Nero, xvi. : ' Christiani, genus
hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficce.' Celsus apud Origenem, iii. 17.
Celsus compared the Church's worship of our Lord with the Egyptian
worship of cats, crocodiles, &c.
Ill]
1 44 TheChurch triumphs throughpersistent suffering.
or like the congenial mysticism which welcomed the Buddhist,
or like the politicians who strove to uphold the falling Paganism
of Eome. It found no countenance even in the Stoic moral
ists S ; they were indeed amorg its fiercest enemies. If, as
M. Renan maintains, it ever was identified by Pagan opinion,
with the ccetus illiciti, with the collegia illicita, with the burial-
clubs of the imperial epoch ; this would only have rendered
it more than ever an object of suspicion to the government n.
Between the new doctrine and the old Paganism there was
a deadly feud ; and the question for the Church was simply
whether she could suffer as long as her enemies could persecute.
Before she could triumph in the western world, the soil of
the empire had to be reddened by Christian blood. Ignatius
of Antioch given to the lions at Rome 5 ; Polycarp of Smyrna
condemned to the flames k ; the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne,
and among them the tender Blandina', extorting by her for
titude the admiration of the very heathen ; Perpetua and
Felicitas at Carthage m conquering a mother's love by a stronger
love for Christ;—these are but samples of the 'noble army'
which vanquished heathendom. 'Plures efficimur,' cries Ter-
tullian, spokesman of the Church in her exultation and in
her agony, ' quoties metimur a vobis ; semen est sanguis
s Diillinger, Heldenth. und Judenth., bk. ix. pt. 2. §. 6. has some very-
interesting remarks on the characteristics of the later Stoicism. It was
a recoil from the corruption of the time. ' Wie die Aerzte in Zeiten grosser
Krankheiten ihre besten Studien machen, so hatten auch die Stoiker in
dem allgemein herrschenden Sittenverderben ihren moralischen Blick
gescharft,' p. 729. Seneca's knowledge of the human heart, the pathos
and solemnity of M. Aurelius, the self-control, patience, and self-denying
courage preached by Epictetus and Arrian, are fully acknowledged. But
Stoicism was virtue upon paper, unrealized except in the instance of a
few coteries of educated people. It was virtue, affecting Divine strength
in the midst of human weakness. Nothing could really be done for
humanity by ' diesen selbstgefalligen Tugendstolz, der alles nur sich selbst
verdanken wollte, der sich der Gottheit gleich setzte, und bei aller men-
schlichen Gebrechlichkeit doch die Sicherheit der Gottheit fur sich in
Anspruch nahm.' (Sen. Ep. 53.) Stoicism had no lever with which
to raise man as man from his degradations : and its earlier expositors
even prescribed suicide as a means of escape from the miseries of life, and
from a sense of moral failure. (Doll, ubi supra, p. 728 ; comp. Sir A. Grant's
Ethics of Arist. vol. i. p. 372.) Who can marvel at its instinctive hatred
of a religion which proclaimed a higher code of Ethics than its own, and
which, moreover, possessed the secret of teaching that code practically to
all classes of mankind ?
h Les Apatres, pp. 355, 361, 362. 1 a. d. 107.
k a. D. 169. 'a. D. 177. m a. D. 202.
[lect.
Christ's Person, the stay ofthe suffering Church. 145
[lect.
LECTURE IV.
The Jews answered Sim, saying, For a good work we stone Thee not; out
for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a Man, mahest Thyself
God.—St. John x. 33.
It is common with some modern writers to represent the ques
tions at issue between the Faith and its opponents, in respect of
the Person of our Lord, as being substantially a question between
the 'historical spirit' and the spirit of dogmatism. The dog
matic temper is painted by them as a baseless but still powerful
superstition, closely pressed by the critical enquiries and negative
conclusions of our day, but culpably shutting its eyes against the
advancing truth, the power of which nevertheless it cannot but
instinctively feel, and clinging with the wrong-headed obstinacy
of despair to the cherished but already condemned formula? of
its time-honoured and worn-out metaphysics. Opposed to it,
we are told, is the ' historical spirit,' young, vigorous, fearless,
truthful, flushed with successes already achieved, assured of suc
cesses yet to come. The ' historical spirit ' is thus said to repre
sent the cause of an enlightened progress in conflict with a stupid
and immoral conservatism. The ' historical spirit ' is described
as the love of sheer reality, as the longing for hard fact, deter
mined to make away with all ' idols of the den,' however ancient,
venerated, and influential, in the sphere of theology. The ' his
torical spirit' accordingly undertakes to 'disentangle the real
Person of Jesus from the metaphysical envelope' within which
theology is said to have 'encased' Him. The Christ is to be
rescued from that cloud-land of abstract and fanciful speculation,
to which He is stated to have been banished by the patristic and
scholastic divines ; He is to be restored to Christendom in mani
fest subjection to all the actual conditions and laws of human
history. ' Look/ it is said, ' at that figure of the Christ which
you see traced in mosaics in the apsis of a Byzantine church.
IV]
15a The Christ of dogma and the Christ of history.
That Countenance upon which you gaze, with its rigid, unalter
able outline, with its calm, strong mien of unassailable majesty ;
that Form from which there has been stripped all the historic
circumstance of life, all that belongs to the changes and chances
of our mortal condition ; what is it but an artistic equivalent
and symbol of the Catholic dogma ? Elevated thus to a world
of unfading glory, and throned in an imperturbable repose, the
Byzantine Christos Pantocrator must be viewed as the expression
of an idea, rather than as the transcript of a fact. A certain
interest may be allowed to attach to such a representation, from
its illustrating a particular stage in the development of religious
thought. But the "historical spirit" must create what it can
consider a really " historical " Christ, who will be to the Christ of
St. Athanasius and St. John what a Rembrandt or a Rubens is
to a Giotto or a Cimabue.' If the illustration be objected to, at
any rate, my brethren, the aim of the so-termed ' historical '
school is sufficiently plain. It proposes to fashion a Christ
who is to be aesthetically graceful and majestic, but strictly
natural, and human. This Christ will be emancipated from the
bandages which ' supernaturalism has wrapped around the Pro
phet of Nazareth.' He will be divorced from any idea of incar
nating essential Godhead ; but, as we are assured, He will still
be something, aye more than the Christ of the Creed has ever
been yet, to Christendom. He will be at once a living man, and
the very ideal of humanity ; at once a being who obeys the in
vincible laws of nature, like ourselves, yet of moral proportions
so mighty and so unrivalled that his appearance among men
shall adequately account for the phenomenon of an existing and
still expanding Church.
Accordingly by this representation it is intended to place us
in a dilemma. ' You must choose,' men seem to say, ' between
history and dogma ; you must choose between history which can
be verified, and dogma which belongs to the sphere of inaccessible
abstractions. You must make your choice ; since the Catholic
dogma of Christ's Divinity is pronounced by the higher criticism
to be irreconcileable with the historical reality of the Life of
Jesus.' And in answer to that challenge, let us proceed, my
brethren, to choose history, and as a result of that choice, if it
may be, to maintain that the Christ of history is either the God
Whom we believers adore, or that He is far below the assumed
moral level of the mere man, whose character rationalism still,
at least generally, professes to respect in the pages of its
mutilated Gospel.
[lect.
The Catholic dogma really historical. 153
For let us observe that the Catholic doctrine has thus much
in its favour :—it takes for granted the only existing history of
Jesus Christ. It is not compelled to mutilate or to enfeeble it,
or to do it critical violence. It is in league with this history; it is
at home, as is no other doctrine, in the pages of the Evangelists.
Consider, first of all, the general impression respecting our
Lord's Person, which arises upon a survey of the miracles
ascribed to Him in all the extant accounts of His Life. To a
thoughtful Humanitarian, who believes in the preternatural
elements of the Gospel history, our Lord's miracles, taken as
a whole, must needs present an embarrassing difficulty. The
miraculous cures indeed, which, more particularly in the earlier
days of Christ's ministry, drew the eyes of men towards Him, as
to the Healer of sickness and of pain, have been ' explained,'
however unsatisfactorily, by the singular methods generally ac
cepted among the older rationalists. A- Teacher, it used to be
argued, of such character as Jesus Christ, must have created a
profound impression ; He must have inspired an entire confi
dence ; and the cures which He seemed to work were the imme
diate results of the impression which He created ; they were the
natural consequences of the confidence which He inspired. Now,
apart from other and many obvious objections to this theory, let
us observe that it is altogether inapplicable to the ' miracles of
power,' as they are frequently termed, which are recorded by
the three first Evangelists, no less than by St. John. ' Miracles
of this class,' says a freethinking writer, ' are not cures which
could have been effected by the influence of a striking sanctity
acting upon a simple faith. They are prodigies ; they are, as it
seems, works which Omnipotence Alone could achieve. In the
case of these miracles it may be said that the laws of nature are
simply suspended. Jesus does not here merely exhibit the
power of moral and mental superiority over common men ; He
upsets and goes beyond the rules and bounds of the order of the
universe. A word from His mouth stills a tempest. A few
loaves and fishes are fashioned by His Almighty hand into an
abundant feast, which satisfies thousands of hungry men. At
His bidding life returns to inanimate corpses. By His curse a
fig-tree which had no fruit on it is withered up a.' The writer
* Schenkel, Charakterbild Jesn, p. ai. Dr. Schenkel concludes: 'Sonst
erscheint Jesus in den drei ersten Evangelien durchgangig als ein wahrer,
innerhalb der Grenzen menschlicher Beschrankung sich bewegender Mensch ;
durch Seine Wunderthatigkeit werden diese Grenzen durchbrochen ; All-
machtswunder sind menschlich nicht mehr begreiflich.'
IV]
154 The Resurrection, and the truth of Christianity.
proceeds to argue that such miracles must be expelled from any
Life of Christ which ' criticism ' will condescend to accept. They
belong, he contends, to that ' torrent of legend,' with which,
according to the rationalistic creed, Jesus was surrounded after
His Death by the unthinking enthusiasm of His disciples b. But
then a question arises as to how much is to be included within
this legendary ' torrent.' In particular, and above all else, is the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave to be regarded as a
part of its contributions to the Life of Christ 1 Here there is a
division among the rationalizing critics. There are writers who
reject our Lord's miracles of power, His miraculous Conception,
and even His Ascension into heaven, and who yet shrink from
denying that very fundamental fact of all, the fact that on ' the
third day He rose from the dead, according to the Scriptures c.'
A man must have made up his mind against Christianity more
conclusively than men are generally willing to avow, if he is to
speculate with M. Renan in the face of Christendom, as to the
exact spot in which ' the worms consumed the lifeless body ' of
Jesus d. This explicit denial of the literal Resurrection of Jesus
from the grave is not compensated for by some theory identical
with, or analogous to, that of Hymenaius and Philetus e respecting
the general Resurrection, whereby the essential subject of Christ's
Resurrection is changed, and the idea of Christianity, or the soul
of the converted Christian, as distinct from the Body of the Lord
Jesus, is said to have been raised from the dead. For such a
denial, let us mark it well, of the literal Resurrection of the
Human Body of Jesus involves nothing less than an absolute and
total rejection of Christianity. All orthodox Churches, all the
great heresies, even Socinianism, have believed in the Resurrec
tion of Jesus. The literal Resurrection of Jesus was the cardinal
11 Schenkel, Charakterbild Jesu, p. 21 : ' Dass ein Lebensbild, wie dasjenige
des Erliisers, bald nach dessen irdischem Hinscheiden von einem reichen Sa-
genstrom umflossen wurde, liegt in der Natur der Sadie.' It may be asked—
Why ? If these legendary decorations are the inevitable consequences of a
life of devotion to moral truth and to philanthropy, how are we to explain
their absence in the cases of so many moralists and philanthropists ancient
and modern ?
0 Cf. Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 281, compared with p. 267.
1 Les Ap&tres, p. 38 : ' Pendant que la conviction ine'branlable des Ap5tres
se formait, et que la foi du monde se preparait, en quel endroit les vers con-
sumaient-ils le corps inanime' qui avait e'te', le samedi soir, de'pose' au se'pulcre ?
On ignorera toujours ce detail ; car, naturellement, les traditions chre'tiennes
ne peuvent rien nous apprendre la--dessus.'
e 2 Tim. ii. 1 8 : 'T/Jtvaios /ecu #i\j/tos, otrives irep! rijv aXr)0fua> ijOTdx'7-
aav, \{-f0VT(s t^v avaoraatv jjSrj yeyovtvat. I Tim. i. 20.
[ LECT.
The Resurrection, and other Christian miracles. 155
fact upon which the earliest preachers of Christianity based their
appeal to the Jewish people f. St. Paul, writing to a Gentile
Church, expressly makes Christianity answer with its life for the
literal truth of the Eesurrection. ' If Christ be not risen, then
is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. . . Then they
also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished Some
modern writers would possibly have reproached St. Paul with
offering a harsh alternative instead of an argument. But St.
Paul would have replied, first, that our Lord's honour and credit
were entirely staked upon the issue, since He had foretold His
Eesurrection as the ' sign ' which would justify His claims h ;
and secondly, that the fact of the Eesurrection was attested by
evidence which must outweigh everything except an ct priori
conviction of the impossibility of miracle, since it was attested by
the word of more than two hundred and fifty living persons who
had actually seen the Eisen Jesus ». As to objections to miracle
of an & priori character, St. Paul would have argued, as most
Theists, and even the French philosopher, have argued, that such
objections could not be urged by any man who believed seriously
in a living God at allk. But on the other hand, if the Eesur
rection be admitted to be a fact, it is puerile to object to the other
miracles of Jesus, or to any other Christian miracles, provided
» Acts i. 22, ii. 24, 32, iii. 15, iv. io, v. 30, x. 40, xiii. 30, 33, 34, xvii. 31.
» I Cor. xv. 14, 18. >» St. Matt. xii. 39, 40.
1 I Cor. xv. 6 : eireira &tp8jj hrivot TrevraKoffiois 6.Sf\(poLS i(pdnat, <?| &v oi
v\e'iovs fkivovaiv tcuj Uprt, nves 5e nal ixoiiiftBtiaav. It is quite arbitrary to
say that ' the Resurrection with Paul is by no means a human corporeal re
surrection as with the Evangelists,' that ' his &<pBr) tcdfioi implies no more
than a flash and a sound, which he interpreted as a presence of Christ.'
(Westm. Rev. Oct. 1867, p. 529.) On this shewing, the &<p6ri Slfimvi in St.
Luke xxiv. 34 might similarly be resolved into an illusion. The (apaxafiev
of St. John xx. 25 might be as unreal as the iwpaua of I Cor. ix. I. It is
also a mere assumption to say that a ' palpable body ' could not be seen at
once by 500 persons ; and the suggestion that St. Paul's own belief in ' a
continued celestial life of Christ,' and in the moral resurrection of Christians
was ' afterwards materialized ' into ' the history of a bodily resurrection of
Christ, and the expectation of a bodily resurrection of mankind from the
grave,' is nothing less than to fasten upon the Apostle the pseudo-spiritual
istic error, against which in this chapter he so passionately contends. On
this subject, see ' The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,' by R. Macpherson, D.D.,
pp.k 127,
' Dieu346.
peut-Il faire des miracles, e'est & dire, peut-il deroger aux lois,
qu'Il a e"tablies ? Cette question s^rieusement traite"e serait impie, si elle
n'e'tait absurde. Ce serait faire trop d'honneur a celui, qui la resoudrait negar
tivement, que de le punir ; il sufnrait de l'enfermer. Mais aussi, quel homme
a jamais me", que Dieu put faire des miracles ?' Rousseau, Lettres e'erites de
la Montagne, Lettre iii.
IV]
i5<5 Christ's miracles how related to His Divinity.
they be sufficiently attested. To have admitted the stupendous
truth that Jesus, after predicting that He would be put to a violent
death, and then rise from the dead, was actually so killed, and
then did actually so rise, must incapacitate any thoughtful man
for objecting to the supernatural Conception or to the Ascension
into heaven, or to the more striking wonders wrought -by Jesus,
on any such ground as that of intrinsic improbability. The
Eesurrection has, as compared with the other miraculous occur
rences narrated in the Gospels, all the force of an h fortiori
argument ; they follow, if we may use the term, naturally from
it ; they are fitly complemental incidents of a history in which
the Eesurrection has already made it plain, that we are dealing
with One in Whose case our ordinary experience of the limits
and conditions of human power is altogether at fault.
But if the miracles of Jesus be admitted in the block, as by a
'rational' believer in the Eesurrection they must be admitted;
they do point, as I have said, to the Catholic belief, as distinct
from any lower conceptions respecting the Person of Jesus Christ.
They differ from the miracles of prophets and Apostles in that,
instead of being answers to prayer, granted by a Higher Power,
they manifestly flow forth from the majestic Life resident in the
Worker1. And instead of presenting so many ' difficulties '
which have to be surmounted or set aside, they are in entire
harmony with that representation of our Saviour's Personal
glory which is embodied in the Creeds. St. John accordingly
calls them Christ's 'works,' meaning that they were just such
acts as might be expected from Him, being such as He was.
For indeed our Lord's miracles are not merely evidences that
He was the organ of a Divine revelation. They do not merely
secure a deferential attention to His disclosures respecting the
nature of God, the duty and destiny of man, His own Person,
mission, and work. Certainly they have this properly evidential
force ; He Himself appealed to them as having itm. But it
would be difficult altogether to account for their form, or for
their varieties, or for the times at which they were wrought, or
for the motives which were actually assigned for working them,
on the supposition that their value was only evidential. They
are like the kind deeds of the wealthy, or the good advice of the
wise ; they are like that debt of charity which is due from the
possessors of great endowments to suffering humanity. Christ
i St. Matt. ix. 6 ; St. Mark ii. 10. M. Salvador represents in our own
day the Jewish feeling respecting this claim of our Lord. ' Voila pourquoi
les docteurs se recrierent de nouveau en entendant le Fils de Marie s'arroger
a lui-meme, et transmettre a ses delegues le droit du pardon : il9 y voyaient
une autre maniere de prendre la place de Dieu.' Jesus-Christ, torn. ii. p. 83.
r St. Matt. xvi. 19 ; St. John xx. 23.
• St. Matt. iv. 19, viii. 22, ix. 9, xix. 21; St. Mark ii. 14; St. Luke v. 27 ;
St. John i. 43, x. 27. * St. Matt. x. 12-15. u I°ia- 37-
IT]
176 An intolerable claim, if Christ be only Man.
brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My
disciple x.' Accordingly He predicts the painful severance be
tween near relations which would accompany the advance of the
Gospel : ' Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth 1
I tell you, Nay ; but rather division : for from henceforth there
shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two
against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and
the son against the father ; the mother against the daughter,
and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against
her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother
in law?.' And the Gospel narrative itself furnishes us with a
remarkable illustration of our Lord's application of His claim.
' He said unto another, Follow Me. But he said, Lord, suffer
me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the
dead bury their dead : but go thou and preach the kingdom of
God. And another also said, Lord, I will follow Thee ; but let
me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the
plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God z.'
It is impossible to ignore this imperious claim on the part
of Jesus to rule the whole soul of man. Other masters may
demand a man's active energies, or his time, or his purse, or
his thought, or some large share in his affections ; but here is
a claim on the whole man, on his very inmost self, on the
sanctities of his deepest life. Here is a claim which sets aside
and ignores the dearest ties of family and kindred, if perchance
they interfere with it. Does any who is merely man dare to
advance such a claim as this 1 If so, is it possible that, believing
him to be only a fellow-creature, we can listen to the claim with
respect, with patience, without earnest indignation i Do not our
souls belong only and wholly to Him Who made them ? Can we
not bury ourselves out of the sight and reach of every fellow-crea
ture, in the hidden recesses of the spirit which we carry within ?
Can we not escape, if we will, from all eyes save One, from all
wills save One, from all voices save One, from all beings excepting
Him Who gave us life 1 How then can we listen to the demand
which is advanced by Jesus of Nazareth 1 Is it tolerable if He
is only man ? If He does indeed share with ourselves the great
debt of creation at the hand of God ; if He exists, like ourselves,
from moment to moment merely upon sufferance ; or rather, if
He is upheld in being in virtue of a continuous and gratuitous
ministration of life, supplied to Him by the Author of all life ;
1 St. Luke xiv. 26. * Ibid. xii. 51-53. * Ibid. ix. 59-62.
[ LECT.
Our Lord reveals His Godhead explicitly. 177
is it endurable that He should thus assume to deal with us as
His own creatures, as beings who have no rights before Him,
and whom He may command at will t Doubtless He speaks of
certain souls as given Him by His Father a; but then He claims
the fealty, the submission of all. And even if souls are only
'given' to Christ, how are we to account for this absolute
gift of an immortal soul to a human Lord ? What, in short,
is the real moral justification of a claim, than which no larger
could be urged by the Creator 1 How can Christ bid men live
for Himself as for the very End of their existence 1 How can He
rightly draw towards Himself the whole thought and love, I do
not say, of a world, but of one single human being, with this
imperious urgency, if He be indeed only the Christ of the Hu
manitarian teachers, if He be anything else or less than the
supreme Lord of life ?
It is then not merely an easy transition, it is a positive
moral relief, to pass from considering these statements and
claims to the declarations in which Jesus Christ explains them
by explicitly asserting His Divinity. For although the solemn
sentences in which He makes that supreme revelation are com
paratively few, it is clear that the truth is latent, in the entire
moral and intellectual posture which we have been considering,
unless we are prepared to fall back upon a fearful alternative
which it will be my duty presently to notice.
Every man who takes a public or stirring part in life may
assume that he has to deal with three different classes of men.
He must face ' his personal friends, his declared opponents, and
a large neutral body which is swayed by turns in the opposite
directions of friendliness and opposition.' Towards each of these
classes he has varying obligations ; and from their different
points of view they form their estimate of his character and
action. Now our Lord, entering as He did perfectly into the
actual conditions of our human and social existence, exposed
Himself to this triple scrutiny, and met it by a correspondingly
threefold revelation. He revealed His Divinity to His disciples,
to the Jewish people, and to His embittered opponents, the chief
priests and Pharisees.
Bearing in mind His acceptance of the confessions of Na-
thanaelb and of St. Peter e, as well as His solemn words to
Nicodemus d , let us consider His language in the supper-room to
St. Philip. It may have been Philip's restlessness of mind, taking
» St. John x. 29. b Ibid. i. 49. c St. Matt. xvi. 16. d St. John ill. 18.
IV] K
178 Christ reveals His Godhead to the Apostles.
pleasure, as men will, in the mere starting a religious difficulty
for its own sake ; it may have been an instinctive wish to find
some excuse for escaping from those sterner obligations which,
on the eve of the Passion, discipleship would threaten presently
to impose. However this was, Philip preferred to our Lord the
peremptory request, 1 Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth
us.' Well might the answer have thrilled those who heard it.
' Have I been so long time with you, and yet thou hast not
known Me, Philip 1 He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father ? Believest thou
not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me 6 V Now
what this indwelling really implied is seen in our Lord's answer
to a question of St. Jude. St. Jude had asked how it was that
Christ would manifest Himself to His servants, and not to the
world. Our Lord replies that the heavenly revelation is made
to love ; but the form in which this answer is couched is of the
highest significance. ' If a man love Me, he will keep my words ;
and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and
make Our abode with him f.' ' We will come unto him and
make Our abode !' Keflect : Who is This Speaker That pro
mises to dwell in the soul of man ? And with Whom does He
associate Himself? It may be true of any eminent saint, that
' God speaks not to him, as to one outside Himself ; that God is
in him ; that he feels himself with God ; that he draws from his
own heart what he tells us of the Father ; that he lives in the
bosom of God by the intercommunion of every moment But
such an one could not forget that, favoured as he is by the Divine
Presence illuminating his whole inner life, he still lives at an
immeasurable distance beneath the Being Whose condescension
has so enriched him. In virtue of his sanctity, he would surely
shrink with horror from associating himself with God ; from
promising, along with God, to make a dwelling-place of the
souls that love himself ; from representing his presence with
men as a blessing co-ordinate with the presence of the Father ;
from attributing to himself oneness of will with the Will of
God ; from implying that side by side with the Father of spirits,
• St. John xiv. 9, 10 ; 'Williams on Study of the Gospels, p. 403.
f St. John xiv. 23.
8 Quoted in Dean Stanley's Lectures on the Jewish Church, part ii. p. 161,
from Renan (Vie de Je'sus, p. 75), who is speaking of our Lord. M. Renan,
in using this language, is very careful to explain that he does not mean to
assert that our Lord is God : ' Jesus n'enonce pas un moment l'idee sacri
lege (!) qu'il soit Dieu.' Ibid.
[ LECT.
Christ reveals His Godhead to the Jewishpeople. 179
he was himself equally a ruler and helper of the life of the souls
of men. 1
The most prominent statements however which our Lord
made on the subject of His Divinity occur in those conversations
with the Jews which are specially recorded in the fourth Gospel.
Our Lord discovers this great truth to the Jewish people by
three distinct methods of statement.
(a) In the first place, He distinctly places Himself on terms
of equality with the Father, by a double claim. He claims a
parity of working power, and He claims an equal right to the
homage of mankind. Of these claims the former is implicitly
contained in passages to which allusion has been already made.
We have seen that it is contained in the assumption of a judicial
authority equal to the task of deciding the final condition of
every individual human being. Although this office is delegated
to and exercised by our Lord as Man, yet so stupendous a task
is obviously not less beyond the reach of any created intelligence
than the providential government of the world. In like manner,
this claim of an equality in working power with the Father is
inseparable from our Lord's statements that He could confer
animal life", and that the future restoration of the whole human
race to life would be effected by an act of His Will \ These
statements were made by our Lord after healing the impotent
man at the pool of Bethesda. They are in fact deductions from
a previous and more comprehensive one. Our Lord had healed
the impotent man on the Sabbath day, and had bidden him take
up his bed and walk. The Jews saw an infraction of the Sab
bath, both in the command given to the impotent man, and in
the act of healing him. They sought to slay our Lord ; but He
justified Himself by saying, ' My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work J.' 'Therefore,' continues the Evangelist, 'the Jews sought
h St. John v. 21 : i Ylbs ots 6e\ei (woiroiti. The quickening the dead is a
special attribute of God (Deut. zxxii. 39 ; 1 Sam. ii. 6). If our Lord's
power of quickening whom He would had referred only to the moral life of
man, the statement would not have been less significant. To raise a soul
from spiritual death is at least as great a miracle, and as strictly proper to
God Almighty, as to raise a dead body. But the (uawolritris here in question,
if moral in ver. 25, is physical in ver. 28 j our Lord is alluding to His re
cently-performed miracle as an illustration of His power. Ibid. vers. 8, 9.
1 St. John v. 28, 29 : epx€T01 &Pa, ^v V kuvtcs °* & T0's fivriiitiois axovaovrai
tt\s ipwvns auTOu, Kal tKtropi'uvovTai, ot to. ayaBa iroiiiGaims, els avdaTaaiv
£<*>ijs, ot Se to (pavha npd£avr(S, els avdo-Taclv Kptaws.
J St. John v. 17: 6 Tlarfjp /xov '4a>s &pri ipydfaat, Kayit 4pyd£onai. 'Wie
der Vater seit Anbeginn nicht aufgehbrt habe, zum Heil der Welt zu
IV ] S2
i8o Our Lord's claim to work on the Sabbath
the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sab
bath, but said also that God was His Own Father, making Him
self equaj with God k.' Now the Jews were not mistaken as to
our Lord's meaning. They knew that the Everlasting God
'neither rests nor is weary;' they knew that if He could slumber
but for a moment the universe would collapse into the nothing
ness out of which He has summoned it. They knew that He
' rested on the seventh day ' from the creation of new beings j
but that in maintaining the life of those which already exist, He
' worketh hitherto.' They knew that none could associate him
self as did Jesus with this world-sustaining energy of God, who
was not himself God. They saw clearly that no one could cite
God's example of an uninterrupted energy in nature and provi
dence as a reason for setting aside God's positive law, without
also and thereby claiming to be Divine. It did not occur to them
that our Lord's words need have implied no more than a resem
blance between His working and the working of the Father. If
indeed our Lord had meant nothing more than this, He would
not have met the objection urged by the Jews against His break
ing the Sabbath. It would have been no argument against the
Jews to have said, that because God's incessant activity is ever
working in the universe, therefore a holy Jew might work on
uninterruptedly, although he thereby violated the Sabbath day.
With equal reason might it have been urged, that because God
wirken, sondera immer fortwirke bis zur jetzigen Stunde, so mit Nothwen-
digkeit und Recht, ungeachtet des Sabbathsgesetzes, auch Er, als der Sohn,
Welcher als Solcher in dieser Seiner Wirksamkeit nicht dem Sabbathsgesetze
unterthan sein kann, sondern Herr des Sabbaths ist.' (St. Matt. xii. 8 ;
St. Mark ii. 28.) Meyer in loc.
k St. John v. 18 : TIar4pa tSutv eXeye rbv @cbv, foov eavrbv trouav 0€q>.
M. Salvador points out the abiding significance of our Lord's language in the
opinion of his co-religionists. 'Si Ton ne s'attaquait qu'aux traditions et
interpretations abusives, c'e'tait s'en prendre a la jurisprudence du jour, aux
: docteurs, aux homines ; c'e'tait user simplement du droit commun en Israel, et
provoquer une reTorme. Mais si l'on se mettait au dessus de l'institution en
elle-meme, si, comme Jesus devant les docteurs, on se proclamait le Maitre
absolu du sabbath, dans ce cas, entre circoncis, c'e'tait attaquer a la loi, en
renverser une des pierres angulaires ; c'e'tait imposer au grand Sacrificateur
le devoir de faire entendre une voix accusatrice; enfin c'e'tait s'Clever au
dessus du Dieu des Juifs, o« tovi-avrmoins se j>rUendre son Egal. Aussi une
temoignage <5clatant vient a l'appui de cette distinction, et ajoute une preuve
a la conformity generate des quatres Evangiles. "Les Juifs," dit judicieuse-
ment l'ap3tre et evangeliste Jean, " ne poursuivirent pas Jesus, par ce seul
motif qu'il violait les ordonnances relatives au sabbath. On lui intenta une
action par cette autre raison ; qu'il se faisait egal a Dieu." ' Salvador, Jesus-
Christ, ii. pp. 80, 81.
[ LECT.
involves His true Divinity. 181
sees good to take the lives of His creatures, in His mercy no less
than in His justice, therefore a religious man might rightfully
put to death His tempted or afflicted brother. The Sabbath was
a positive precept, but it rested on a moral basis. It had been
given by God Himself. Our Lord claims a right to break the
Sabbath, because God's ever active Providence is not suspended
on that day. Our Lord thus places both His Will and His Power
on the level of the Power and Will of the Father. He might
have parried the Jewish attack by saying that the miracle of
healing the impotent man was a work of God, and that He was
Himself but the unresisting organ of a Higher Being. On the
Socinian hypothesis He ought to have done so. But He repre
sents the miracle as His own work. He claims distinctly to be
Lord of nature, and thus to be equal with the Father in point of
operative energy. He makes the same assertion in saying that
I whatsoever things the Father doeth, those things the Son also
doeth in like manner V To narrow down these words so as to
make them only refer to Christ's imitation of the moral nature
of God, is to take a liberty with the text for which it affords no
warrant ; it is to make void the plain meaning of Scripture by a
sceptical tradition. Our Lord simply and directly asserts that
the works of the Father, without any restriction, are, both as to
their nature and mode of production, the works of the Son.
Certainly our Lord insists very carefully upon the truth that
the power which He wielded was derived originally from the
Father. It is often difficult to say whether He is speaking, as
Man, of the honour of union with Deity and of the graces which
flowed from Deity, conferred upon His Manhood ; or whether,
as the Everlasting Son, He is describing those natural and
eternal Gifts which are inherent in His Godhead, and which He
receives from the Father, the Fountain or Source of Deity, not
as a matter of grace or favour, but in virtue of His Eternal
Generation. As God, ' the Son can do nothing of Himself,' and
this, ' not from lack of power, but because His Being is insepar
able from That of the Father m.' It is true of Christ as God in
one sense—it is true of Him as Man in another—that ' as the
Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to
have life in Himself.' But neither is an absolute harmony of
the works of Christ with the Mind and Will of the Father, nor a
derivation of the Divine Nature of Christ Itself from the Being
1 St. John v. 19 : & yhp ta> iKe'vos iroi??, toDto koJ S Tibs Suolais iroic?.
m Euthym.
IV] ..
1 82 Our Lord claims to be One with the Father.
of the Father by an unbegun and unending Generation, destruc
tive of the force of our Lord's representation of His operative
energy as being on a par with that of the Father.
For, our Lord's real sense is made plain by His subsequent
statement that 'the Father hath committed all judgment unto
the Son ; that all should honour the Son even as they honour
the Father11.' This claim is indeed no more than He had
already advanced in bidding His followers trust Him and love
Him. The obligation of honouring the Son is defined to be just
as stringent as the obligation of honouring the Father. What
ever form that honour may take, be it thought, or language, or
outward act, or devotion of the affections, or submission of the
will, or that union of thought and heart and will into one
complex act of self-prostration before Infinite Greatness, which
we of the present day usually mean by the term 'adoration,'
such honour is due to the Son no less than to the Father. How
fearful is such a claim if the Son be only human ; how natural,
how moderate, how just, if He is in very deed Divine !
(|3) Beyond this assertion of an equal operative Power with
the Father, and of an equal right to the homage of mankind, is
our Lord's revelation of His absolute Oneness of Essence with
the Father. The Jews gathered around Him at the Feast of
Dedication in the Porch of Solomon, and pressed Him to tell
them whether He was the Christ or not0. Our Lord referred
them to the teaching which they had heard, and to the miracles
which they had witnessed in vainP ; but He proceeded to say
that there were docile and faithful souls whom He terms His
'sheep,' and whom He 'knew,' while they too understood and
followed Him<i. He goes on to insist upon the blessedness of
these His true followers. With Him they were secure ; no
power on earth or in heaven could 'pluck them out of His
Handr.' A second reason for the blessedness of His sheep
n St. John v. 22, 23. Meyer in loc. : ' In dem richtenden Sonne erscheint
der beauftragte Stellvertreter des Vaters, und er ist in so fern (also immer
relativ) zu ehren me der Vater.' But if the honour paid to the Son be merely
relative, if He be merely honoured as an Ambassador or delegated Judge, then
men do not honour Him as they honour the Father. No identity of language
or of outward reverence can atone for a vital difference of principle in this
tribute of honour. Moses had been 'as a God unto Pharaoh :' he had been
God's ambassador and judge among the children of Israel. Does he there
fore claim a ' relative ' honour, equal in its outward symptoms, to that paid to
God ? And if not, why not ?
0 St. John x. 22, 23. P Ibid. ver. 25.
1 Ibid. ver. 27. 1 Ibid. ver. 28.
[ LECT.
Nature of this Unity.
follows : • My Father which gave them Me is a Greater Power
(fwlfov) than all : and no man is able to pluck them out of My
Father's Hand8.' In these words our Lord repeats His previous
assurance of the security of His sheep, but He gives a different
reason for it. He had represented them as ' in His own Hand
He now represents them as in the Hand of the Almighty Father.
How does He consolidate these two reasons which together
assure His 'sheep' of their security? By distinctly asserting
His own oneness with the Father : ' I and My Father are One
Thing*.' Now what kind of unity is that which the context
obliges us to see in this solemn statement? Is it such a unity
as that which our Lord desired for His followers in His in
tercessory prayer ; a unity of spiritual communion, of reciprocal
love, of common participation in an imparted, heaven-sent
Nature" 1 Is it a unity of design and co-operation, such as
that which, in varying degrees, is shared by all true workers for
Godv? How would either of these lower unities sustain the
full sense of the context, which represents the Hand of the Son
as one with the Hand—that is, with the Love and Power—of
the Father, securing to the souls of men an effectual preservation
from eternal ruin ? A unity like this must be a dynamic unity,
as distinct from any mere moral and intellectual union, such as
might exist in a real sense between a creature and its God.
Deny this dynamic unity, and you destroy the internal con
nexion of the passaged Admit this dynamic unity, and you
admit, by necessary implication, a unity of Essence. The Power
of the Son, which shields the redeemed from the foes of their
■ St. John z. 29.
* Ibid. ver. 30 : 'E71I? ko! 6 Tlariip %v lap.tv. For a full explanation of this
text see Bishop Beveridge's noble sermon on the Unity of Christ with God
the Father, Works, vol. ii. Serm. xxv. See also note D.
u As in St. John xvii. 11, 22, 23. » 1 Cor. iii. 8.
* Meyer in Joh. x. 29 : ' Der Vater in dem Sohne ist und wirkt, und daher
dieser, als Organ und Träger [He is, of course, much more than this] der
gottlichen Thätigkeit bei Ausführung des Messianischen Werks, nicht ge
schieden von Gott [i. e. the Father] nicht ein zweiter ausser und neben Gott ist,
sondern nach dem Wesen jener Gemeinschaft Eins mit Gott. Gottes Hand
ist daher seine Hand in der Vollziehung des Werkes, bei welchem Er Gottes
Macht, Liebe u. s. w. handhabt und zur Ausführung bringt. Die Einheit ist
mithin die der dynamischen Gemeinschaft, wornach der Vater im Sohne ist,
und doch grösser als der Sohn, [i. e. as man,] weil Er ihn geweiht und gesandt
hat. Die Arianische Fassung von der ethischen Harmonie genügt nicht, da die
Argumentation, ohne die Einheit der Macht (welche Chrys. Euth. Zig. u. V.
auch Lücke mit Recht urgiren) zu verstehen, nicht zutreffen würde.' This
interpretation is remarkable for its scholarly fairness in a writer who sits so
loosely to the Catholic belief in our Lord's Godhead as Meyer.
IV]
184 Our Lord's reference to Psalm lxxxii. 6.
salvation, is the very Power of the Father ; and this identity of
Power is itself the outflow and the manifestation of a Oneness
of Nature. Not that at this height of contemplation the Person
of the Son, so distinctly manifested just now in the work of
guarding His redeemed, melts away into any mere aspect or
relation of the Divine Being in His dealings with His creatures.
As St. Augustine observes on this text, the 'unum' saves us
from the Charybdis of Arianism ; the ' sumus' is our safeguard
against the Scylla of Sabellius. The Son, within the incom
municable unity of God, is still Himself ; He is not the Father,
but the Son. Yet this personal subsistence is in the mystery of
the Divine Life strictly compatible with Unity of Essence ;—the
Father and the Son are one Thing.
' Intellexerunt Judsei, quod non intelligunt Ariani.' The Jews
understood our Lord to assume Divine honours, and proceeded
to execute the capital sentence decreed against blasphemy by
the Mosaic lawy. His words gave them a fair ground for saying
that 'being Man, He made Himself God2.' Now if our Lord
had been in reality only Man, He might have been fairly ex
pected to say so. Whereas He proceeds, as was often His wont,
to reason with His opponents upon their own real or assumed
grounds, and so to bring them back to a point at which they
were forced to draw for themselves the very inference which had
just roused their indignation. With this view our Lord points
out the application of the word Elohim, to the wicked judges
under the Jewish theocracy, in the eighty-second Psalm a.
Surely, with this authoritative language before their eyes, His
countrymen could not object to His calling Himself the Son of
God. And yet He irresistibly implies that His title to Divinity
is higher than, and indeed distinct in kind from, that of the
Jewish magistrates. If the Jews could tolerate that ascription
of a lower and relative divinity to the corrupt officials who,
theocratically speaking, represented the Lord Jehovah; surely,
looking to the witness of His works, Divinity could not be
denied to One Who so manifestly wielded Divine power as did
Jesus b. Our Lord's argument is thus d minori ad majus ; and
He arrives a second time at the assertion which had already
given such offence to His countrymen, and which He now
repeats in terms expressive of His sharing not merely a dy
namical but an essential unity with the Father : ' The Father is
J St. John x. 31. * Ibid. 33 : 2i>, &v8ptmos &v, voieis veavrbv @eiv.
" Ps. lxxxii. 6. b St. John x. 37, 38.
[ LECT.
The yews understood our Lord's meaning. 185
in Me, and I in Him0.' What the Father is to the Son, the
Son is to the Father. The context again forbids us to compare
this expression with the phrases which are often used to express
the indwelling of God with holy souls, since no moral quality is
here in question, but an identity of Power for the performance
of superhuman works. Our Lord expresses this truth of His
wielding the power of the Father, by asserting His identity of
Nature with the Father, which involves His Omnipotence. And
the Jews understood Him. He had not retracted what they
accounted blasphemy, and they again endeavoured to take His
life*
It will probably be said that the Church's interpretation of
Christ's language in the Porch of Solomon is but an instance of
that disposition to materialize spiritual truth, which seems to be
so unhappily natural to the mind of man. ' What grossness of
apprehension,' it will be urged, ' is here ! How can you thus
confound language which merely asserts the sustained inter
communion of a holy soul with God, and those hard formal
scholastic assertions of an identity of essence V But it is
obvious to rejoin that in cases like that before us, language
must be morally held to mean what it is understood to mean by
those to whom it is addressed. After all, language is designed
to convey thought ; and if a speaker perceives that his real mind
has not been conveyed by one statement, he is bound to correct
the deficiencies of that statement by another. Had our Lord
been speaking to populations accustomed to Pantheistic modes
of thinking, and insensible to the fundamental distinctness of
the Uncreated from all forms of created life, His assertion of
His oneness with the Father might perhaps have passed for
nothing more than the rapture of a subjective ecstasy, in which
the consciousness of the Speaker had been so raised above its
ordinary level, that He could hyperbolically describe His sensa
tions as Divine. Had our Lord been an Indian, or an Alex
andrian, or a German mystic, some such interpretation might
have been reasonably affixed to His language. Had Christ been
a Christian instead of the Author of Christianity, we might,
after carefully detaching His words from their context, have
even supposed that He was describing the blessed experience of
millions of believers ; it being certain that, since the Incarnation,
the soul of man is capable of a real union with the All-holy
God. Undoubtedly writers like St. Augustine, and many of
c St. John x. 38 : tv fyol i Ilar^p, K&yii iv avr$.
i Ibid. ver. 39 : ityrovv oZv iriKiv carrbv iri&atu.
IV ]
1 86 Our Lord refers to His Pre-existence.
later date", do speak of the union between God and the Chris
tian in terms which signally illustrate the loving condescension
of God truly present in holy souls, of God's gift of Himself to
His redeemed creatures. But the belief of these writers re
specting the Nature of the Most High has placed the phrases
of their mystical devotion beyond the reach of a possible
misunderstanding. And our Lord was addressing earnest
monotheists, keenly alive to the essential distinction between
the Life of the Creator and the life of the creature, and re
ligiously jealous of the Divine prerogatives. The Jews did not
understand Christ's claim to be One with the Father in any
merely moral, spiritual, or mystical sense. Christ did not en
courage them so to understand it. The motive of their in
dignation was not disowned by Him. They believed Him to
mean that He was Himself a Divine Person ; and He never
repudiated that construction of His language.
(y) In order however to determine the real sense of our
Saviour's claim to be One with the Father, let us ask a simple
question. Does it appear that He is recorded to have been con
scious of having existed previously to His Human Life upon this
earth 1 Suppose that He is only a good man enjoying the highest
degree of constant spiritual intercommunion with God, no refer
ences to a Pre-existent Life can be anticipated. There is nothing
to warrant such a belief in the Mosaic Kevelation, and to have
professed it on the soil of Palestine would simply have been
taken by the current opinion of the people as a proof of mental
derangement. But believe that Christ is the Only-begotten Son
of God, manifested in the sphere of sense and time, and clothed
in our human nature ; and some references to a consciousness
extending backwards through the past into a boundless eternity
are only what would naturally be looked for at His hands.
Let us then listen to Him as He is proclaiming to His
countrymen in the temple, ' If a man keep My saying, He shall
never see death f.' The Jews exclaim that by such an announce
ment He assumes to be greater than Abraham and the prophets.
They indignantly ask, 'Whom makest Thou Thyself?' Here as
elsewhere our Lord keeps both sides of His relation to the
Eternal Father in full view : it is the Father that glorifies His
• e.g. Thomas & Kempis. Of his teaching respecting the union between God
•and the devout soul, there is a good summary in Ullmann's Reformers before
the Reformation, vol. ii. pp. 139-149. Clarke's transl.
f St. John viii. 52 : Idy tii riv \4yoi> rbv i/iby Tijp^crj?, iivaror oh /iij 8ea>
[lect.
1 Before Abraham was, I am.'
Manhood, and the Jews would glorify Him too if they were the
Father's true children. But it was not their Heavenly Father
alone, with whom the Jews were at variance. The earthly
ancestor of the Jewish race might be invoked to rebuke his
recreant posterity. ' Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see My
day, and he saw it and was glad.' Abraham had seen the day of
Messiah by the light of prophecy, and accordingly this statement
was a claim on the part of Jesus to be the true Messiah. Of
itself such a claim would not have shocked the Jews ; they
would have discussed it on its merits. They had latterly looked
for a political chief, victorious but human, in their expected
Messiah ; they would have welcomed any prospect of realizing
their expectations. But they detected a deeper and to them a
less welcome meaning in the words of Christ. He had meant,
they thought, by His ' Day' something more than the years of
His Human Life. At any rate they would ask Him a question,
which would at once justify their suspicions or enable Him to
clear Himself. ' Thou,' they said to Him, ' art not yet fifty years
old, and hast Thou seen Abraham ? ' Now if our Lord had only
claimed to be a human Messiah, such as the Jews of later years
had learned to look for, He must have earnestly disavowed any
such inference from His words. He might have replied that if
Abraham saw Him by the light of prophecy, this did not of itself
imply that He was Abraham's contemporary, and so that He
had Himself literally seen Abraham. But His actual answer
more than justified the most extreme suspicions of His examiners
as to His real meaning. ' Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, Before Abraham was, lam.' In these tremendous
words the Speaker institutes a double contrast, in respect both
of the duration and of the mode of His existence, between Him
self and the great ancestor of Israel, npiv 'APpaap yeve'adai.
Abraham, then, had come into existence at some given point of
time. Abraham did not exist until his parents gave him birth.
But, 'Eya> dpi. Here is simple existence, with no note of
beginning or ends. Our Lord says not, 'Before Abraham
« St. John viii. 58. Meyer in loc. : ' Ehe Abraham ward, bin Ich, alter
als Abraham's Werden ist meine Existenz.' Stier characterizes our Lord's
words as ' a sudden [not to Himself] flash of revelation out of the depths of
His own Eternal Consciousness.' That Christ should finally have spoken
thus, is not, Stier urges, to be wondered at, on the supposition of this Eternal
Consciousness ever abiding with Him. Rather is it wonderful, that He
should ordinarily, and as a rule, have restrained it so much. Here too,
indeed, He restrains Himself. He does not go on to say, as afterwards in the
Great Intercession—rpb rod rbv k6<tiu>v dvai (St. John xvii. 5).
XV]
1 88 Christ speaks ofhaving come down from heaven,
was, I was,' but ' I am.' He claims pre-existence indeed, but He
does not merely claim pre-existence ; He unveils a conscious
ness of Eternal Being. He speaks as One on Whom time has no
effect, and for Whom it has no meaning. He is the I AM of
ancient Israel ; He knows no past, as He knows no future ; He
is unbeginning, unending Being ; He is the eternal ' Now.'
This is the plain sense of His language, and perhaps the most
instructive commentary upon its force is to be found in the
violent expedients to which Humanitarian writers have been
driven in order to evade it h.
Here again the Jews understood our Lord, and attempted to
kill Him ; while He, instead of explaining Himself in any sense
which would have disarmed their anger, simply withdrew from
the temple
With this statement we may compare Christ's references to
His pre-existence in His two great sacramental Discourses.
Conversing with Nicodemus He describes Himself as the Son of
Man Who had come down from heaven, and Who while yet
speaking was in heaven K Preaching in the great synagogue of
Capernaum, He calls Himself ' the Bread of Life Which had
come down from heaven.' He repeats and expands this descrip
tion of Himself. His pre-existence is the warrant of His life-
giving power J. The Jews objected that they knew His father
and mother, and did not understand His advancing any such
claim as this to a Pre-existent Life. Our Lord replied by saying
that no man could come to Him unless taught of God to do so,
and then proceeded to re-assert His pre-existence in the same
terms as before m. He pursued His former statement into its
mysterious consequences. Since He was the heaven-descended
Bread of Life, His Flesh was meat indeed and His Blood was
drink indeed n. They only would have life in them who should
h Cf. Meyer on St. John viii. 58: ' Das iyd ti/u ist aber weder : Ich bin
es (der Messias) zu deuten (Famtus Socinus, Paultis, ganz contextwidrig),
noch in den Bathschluss Gottes, zu verlegen (Sam. Crdl, Grotius, Paulus,
S. Crwius), was schon durch das Praes. verboten wird. Nur noch
geschichtlich bemerkenswerth ist die von Faustus Socinus auch in das
Socinianische Bekenntniss (s. Catech. Racov. ed. Oeder, p. 144, f.) iiberge-
gangene Auslegung: "Ehe Abraham, Abraham, d. i. derVater vieler Volker,
wird, bin Ich es, namlich der Messias, das Licht der Welt." Damit ermahne
Er die Juden, an Ihn zu glauben, so lange es noch Zeit sei, ehe die Gnade
von ihnen genommen und auf die Heiden ubergetragen werde, wodurch dann
Abraham der Vater vieler Volker werde.'
• St. John viii. 59. k Ibid. iii. 13. 1 Ibid. vi. 33.
m Ibid. vers. 44-51. » Ibid. ver. 55.
[ LECT.
and ofascending up to where He was before. 189
eat this Flesh and drink this Blood °. Life eternal, Eesurrection
at the last day p, and His own Presence even now within the
soul 9, would follow upon a due partaking of that heavenly food.
When the disciples murmured at this doctrine as a ' hard say
ing r,' our Lord met their objections by predicting His coming
Ascension into heaven as an event which would justify His allu
sions to His pre-existence, no less than to the life-giving virtue
of His Manhood. ' What and if ye shall see the Son of Man
ascend up where He was before8?' Again, the reality of our
Lord's pre-existence lightens up such mysterious sayings as the
following : ' I know whence I came, and whither I go ; but ye
cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go 1 ; ' 'I am from
above : . . . I am not of this world u ;' 'If ye believe not that I
am He, ye shall die in your sins*;' 'I came forth from the
Father, and am come into the world : again, I leave the
world, and go to the Father y.' Once more, how full of solemn
significance is that reference to 'the glory which I had with
Thee before the world was V in the great intercession which our
Incarnate Saviour offered to the Eternal Father on the eve of
His agony !
Certainly taken alone, our Lord's allusions to His Pre-existence
need not imply His true Divinity. There is indeed no ground
for the theory of a Palestinian doctrine of metempsychosis ; and
even Strauss shrinks from supposing that the fourth Evangelist
makes Jesus the mouthpiece of Alexandrian theories of which a
Jewish peasant would never have heard. Arianism however
would argue, and with reason, that in some of the passages just
° St. John vi. 53. P Ibid. ver. 54.
4 Ibid. ver. 56. r Ibid. ver. 60.
■ Ibid. ver. 62. Strauss thinks it 'difficult but admissible* to interpret
St. John viii. 58, with the Socinian Crell, of a purely ideal existence in the
predetermination of God. He considers it however 'scarcely possible to view
the prayer to the Father (St. John xvii. 5) to confirm the S6£a which Jesus
had with. Him before the world was, as an entreaty for the communication of
a glory predestined for Jesus from eternity.' He adds that the language of
Jesus (St. John vi. 62) where He speaks of the Son of Man re-ascending
where He was before, avafiafotiv &wov ijy rb irpdrfpov, is 'in its intrinsic mean
ing, as well as in that which is reflected on it from other passages, unequivo
cally significative of actual, not merely of ideal pre-existence.' Leben Jesu,
pt. ii. kap. 4. § 65.
Here, as sometimes elsewhere, Strauss incidentally upholds the natural and
Catholic interpretation of the text of the Gospels ; nor are we now concerned
with the theory to which he eventually applies it. It may be further ob
served, that Strauss might have at least interpreted St. John viii. 58 by the
light of St. John vi. 62. * Ibid. viii. 14. u Ibid. ver. 23.
1 Ibid. ver. 24. * Ibid. xvi. 28. z Ibid. xvii. 5.
XV]
190 Our Lord's testimony when before the Sankedrin.
referred to, though not in all, our Lord might conceivably have
been speaking of a created, although pre-existent, life. Yet if
we take these passages in connexion with our Lord's assertion of
His being One with the Father, each truth will be seen to sup
port and complete the other. On the one hand, Christ asserts
His substantial oneness with Deity, on the other, His distinct
pre-existent Personality. He might be an inferior and created
Being, if He were not thus absolutely One with God. He might
be only a saintly man, and, as such, described as an ' aspect,' a
'manifestation' of the Divine Life, if His language about His
pre-existence did not clearly imply that before His birth of
Mary He was already a living and superhuman Person.
If indeed, in His dealings with the multitude, our Lord had
been really misunderstood, He had a last opportunity for ex
plaining Himself when He was arraigned before the Sanhedrin.
Nothing is more certain than that, whatever was the dominant
motive that prompted our Lord's apprehension, the Sanhedrin
condemned Him because He claimed Divinity. The members of
the court stated this before Pilate. ' We have a law, and by our
law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son ofGoda.'
Their language would have been meaningless if they had under
stood by the ' Son of God' nothing more than the ethical or
theocratic Sonship of their own ancient kings and saints. If the
Jews held Christ to be a false Messiah, a false prophet, a blas
phemer, it was because He claimed literal Divinity. True, the
Messiah was to have been Divine. But the Jews had secularized
the Messianic promises; and the Sanhedrin held Jesus Christ
to be worthy of death under the terms of the Mosaic law, as ex
pressed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy \ After the witnesses
had delivered their various and inconsistent testimonies, the
high priest arose and said, ' I adjure Thee by the living God,
that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said : nevertheless I say unto
you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the
high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy0.'
a St. John xix. 7. ' Devant ce procurateur,' observes M. Salvador, ' chacune
des parties e"mit une parole capitale. Telle fut celle du conseil ou de ses
de'le'gue's : " Nous avons une loi ; d'apres cette loi il doit mourir," non parce-
qu'il s'est fait Fils de Dieu, selon l'expression familiere a notre langue et a nos
prophetes ; mais parcequ'il se fait egal a Dieu, et Dieu meme.' Salvador,
J&us-Christ, ii. p. 204.
b Lev. xxiv. 16; Deut. xiii. 5 ; cf. Wilson, Illustration of the Method of
Explaining the New Testament, p. 26. " St. Matt. xxvi. 63-65.
[lect.
He is condemnedfor claiming to be Divine. 191
The blasphemy did not consist, either in the assumption of the
title Son of Man, or in the claim to be Messiah, or even, except
ing indirectly, in that which by the terms of Daniel's prophecy
was involved in Messiahship, namely, the commission to judge
the world. It was the further claim d to be the Son of God,
not in any moral or theocratic, but in the natural sense, at which
the high priest and his coadjutors professed to be so deeply
shocked. The Jews felt, as our Lord intended, that the Son of
Man in Daniel's prophecy could not but be Divine ; they knew
what He meant by appropriating such words as applicable to
Himself. Just as one body of Jews had endeavoured to destroy
Jesus when He called God His Father in such sense as to claim
Divinity 6 ; and another when He contrasted His Eternal Being
with the fleeting life of Abraham in a distant pastf; and another
when He termed Himself Son of God, and associated Himself
with His Father as being dynamically and so substantially Oneg;
—just as they murmured at His pretension to ' have come down
from heaven V and detected blasphemy in His authoritative re
mission of sins';—so when, before His judges, He admitted that
He claimed to be the Son of God, all further discussion was at
an end. The high priest exclaimed ' Ye have heard His blas
phemy ;' and they all condemned Him to be guilty of death.
And a very accomplished Jew of our own day, M. Salvador, has
shewn that this question of our Lord's Divinity was the real
point at issue in that momentous trial. He maintains that
a Jew had no logical alternative to belief in the Godhead of
Jesus Christ except the imperative duty of putting Him to
death K
d Pressens^, J^sus-Christ, pp. 341, 615. • St. John v. 17, 18.
' Ibid. viii. 58, 59. 8 Ibid. x. 30, 31, 39. * Ibid. vi. 42.
1 St. Matt. ix. 3 ; St. Luke v. 20, 21.
* Salvador, Jesus-Christ, ii. pp. 132, 133, 195 : 'La question avait un c6te!
politique ou national juif : c'<5tait la resistance du Fils de Marie, dans Jeru
salem mfime, aux ordres et avertissements du grand Conseil. Au point de
vue religieux, selon la loi, Jesus se trouvait en cause pour s'etre declare1 ega]
h Dieu et Dieu lui-mgme.' See also the Rev. W. Wilson's Illustration of the
Method of Explaining the New Testament, p. 77, sqq. Mr. Wilson shews
that the Sanhedrin sincerely believed our Lord to be guilty of the crime of
blasphemy, as inseparable, to a Jewish apprehension, from His claim to be
Divine. This is argued (1) from the regularity of the proceedings of the
Sanhedrin, the length of the trial, and the earnestness and unanimity of the
judges. The false witnesses were considered as such by the Sanhedrin : our
Lord was condemned on the strength of His Own confession ; (2) from the
language of the members of the Sanhedrin before Pilate : 'By our law He
ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God;' (3) from the fact
IV]
192 Christ's Self-assertion and His character.
III. In order to do justice to the significance of onr Lord's
language about Himself, let us for a moment reflect on our very
fundamental conceptions of His character. There is indeed a
certain seeming impropriety in using that word ' character' with
respect to Jesus Christ at all. For in modern language
' character' generally implies the predominance or the absence
of some side or sides of that great whole, which we picture to
ourselves in the background of each individual man as the true
and complete ideal of human nature. This predominance or
absence of particular traits or faculties, this precise combination
of active or of passive qualities, determines the moral flavour of
each individual life, and constitutes character. Character is
that whereby the individual is marked off from the presumed
standard or level of typical manhood. Yet the closest analysis
of the actual Human Life of Jesus reveals a moral Portrait not
only unlike any that men have witnessed before or since, but
especially remarkable in that it presents an equally balanced and
entirely harmonious representation of all the normal elements of
our perfected moral nature1. Still, we may dare to ask the
question : What are the features in that perfectly harmonious
moral Life, upon which the reverence and the love of Christians
dwells most constantly, most thankfully, most enthusiastically t
1. If then on such a subject I may utter a truism without
irreverence, I say first of all that Jesus Christ was sincere. He
possessed that one indispensable qualification for any teacher,
specially for a teacher of religion : He believed in what He said,
without reserve ; and He said what He believed, without regard
to consequences. Material error is very pardonable, if it be
error which in good faith believes itself to be truth. But evident
insincerity we cannot pardon ; we cannot regard with any other
that the members of the Sanhedrin had no material object to gain by pro
nouncing Jesus guilty, without being persuaded of His criminality in claiming
to be a Divine Person. Mr. Wilson fortifies these considerations by appeal
ing to our Lord's silence, to St. Peter's address to his countrymen in Acts iii.
14-17, and to the general conduct of the Jewish people.
1 Young, Christ of History, p. 217 : 'The difficulty which we chiefly feel
in dealing with the character of Christ, as it unfolded itself before men,
arises from its absolute perfection. On this very account it is less fitted to
arrest observation. A single excellence unusually developed, though in the
neighbourhood of great faults, is instantly and universally attractive. Per
fect symmetry, on the other hand, does not startle, and is hidden from
common and casual observers. But it is this which belongs emphatically to
the Christ of the Gospels ; and we distinguish in Him at each moment that
precise manifestation which is most natural and most right.'
[ LECT.
Sincerity of Jesus Christ. i93
sentiment than that of indignation the conscious propagation of
what is known to be false, or even to be exaggerated. If however
the sincerity of our Lord could be reasonably called in question,
it might suffice, among the various facts which so irresistibly
establish it, to point to His dealings with persons who followed
and trusted Him. It is easy to denounce the errors of men who
oppose us ; but it is difficult to be always perfectly outspoken
with those who love us, or who look up to us, or whose services
may be of use to us, and who may be alienated by our out
spokenness. Now Jesus Christ does not merely drag forth to
the light of day the hidden motives of His powerful adversaries,
that He may exhibit them with so mercifully implacable an
accuracy, in all their baseness and pretension. He exposes, with
equal impartiality, the weakness, or the unreality, or the self-
deception of others who already regard Him with affection or
who desire to espouse His cause. A disciple addresses Him as
' Good Master.' The address was in itself sufficiently justifiable ;
but our Lord observed that the speaker had used it in an unreal
and conventional manner. In order to mark His displeasure He
sharply asked, ' Why callest thou Me Good t There is none good
but One, that is, God m.' A multitude which He has fed miracu
lously returns to seek Him on the following day ; but instead
of silently accepting this tacit proof of His popular power, He
observes, ' Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but
because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled n.' On another
occasion, we are told, ' there went great multitudes with Him.'
He turns, warns them that all human affections must be sacrificed
to His service, and that none could be His disciple who does not
take up the cross0. He solemnly bids men 'count the cost' before
they 'build the tower' of discipleshipP. He is on the point of being
deserted by all, and an Apostle protests with fervid exaggeration
that he is ready to go with Him to prison or to death. But our
Lord, instead of at once welcoming the affection which dictated
this protestation, pauses to shew Simon Peter how little he really
knew of the weakness of his own heart?. With the woman of
Samaria, with Simon the Pharisee, with the Jews in the temple,
with the rich young man, it is ever the same ; Christ cannot
flatter, He cannot disguise, He cannot but set forth truth in its
limpid purity r. Such was His moral attitude throughout : sin-
m St. Mark x. 18. n St. John vi. 26. 0 St. Luke xiv. 26, 27.
p Ibid. ver. 28. ? St. John xiii. 37, 38.
' Cf. Newman, Parochial Sermons, vol. v. p. 37, serm. 3: 'Unreal Words.'
IV] 0
i94 Unselfishness of yesus Christ.
cerity was the mainspring of His whole thought and action ; and
when He stood before His judges He could exclaim, in this as in
a wider sense, ' To this end was I born, and for this cause came
I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth 8.'
Surely this sincerity of our Holy Saviour is even at this hour
a main secret of His attractive power. Men, we know, may
flatter and deceive, till at length the soul grows sick and weary
of a world, which Truth in her stem simplicity might some
times seem to have abandoned. But Jesus Christ, speaking to us
from the Gospel pages, or speaking in the secret chambers of
conscience, is a Monitor Whom we can trust to tell us the un
welcome but wholesome truth ; and could we conceive of Him
as false, He would no longer be Himself in our thought ; He
would not be changed ; He would simply have disappeared *.
2. A second moral truism : Jesus Christ was unselfish. His
Life was a prolonged act of Self-sacrifice ; and sacrifice of self is
the practical expression and measure of unselfishness. It might
have seemed that where there was no sin to be curbed or worn
away by sorrow and pain, there room might have been found for
a lawful measure of self-satisfaction. But ' even Christ pleased
not Himself.' He ' sought not His Own glory ;' He ' came not
to do His Own will".' His Body and His Soul, with all the
faculties, the activities, the latent powers of each, were offered
to the Divine Will. His friends, His relatives, His mother and
His home, His pleasure, His reputation, His repose, were all
abandoned for the glory of God and for the good of His
brethren. His Self-sacrifice included the whole range of His
human thought and affection and action; it lasted throughout
His Life ; its highest expression was His Death upon the Cross.
Those who believe Him to have been merely a man endowed
with the power of working miracles, or even only with the
power of wielding vast moral influence over masses of men,
cannot but recognise the rare loveliness and sublimity of a Life
in which great powers were consciously possessed, yet were
• St. John xviii. 37.
* Felix, Jesus-Christ, p. 316; Channing, Works, ii. 55 : 'When I trace
the unaffected majesty which runs through the life of Jesus, and see Him
never falling below His sublime claims amidst poverty, and scorn, and in His
last agony, I have a feeling of the reality of His character which I cannot ex
press. I feel that the Jewish carpenter could no more have conceived and
sustained this character under motives of imposture, than an infant's arm
could repeat the deeds of Hercules, or his unawakened intellect comprehend
and rival the matchless works of genius.'
u Rom. xv. 3; St. John v. 30, vi. 38; St. Matt. xxvi. 39.
[ LECT.
Humility of Jesus Christ.
never exercised for those objects which the selfish instinct of
ordinary men •would naturally pursue. It is this disinterested
ness ; this devotion to the real interests of humankind ; this
radical antagonism of His whole character to that deepseated
selfishness, which in our better moments we men hate in our
selves and which we always hate in others ;—it is this complete
renunciation of all that has no object beyond self, which has won
to Jesus Christ the heart of mankind. In Jesus Christ we hail
the One Friend Who loves perfectly; "Who expresses perfect
love by the utter surrender of Self; Who loves even unto death.
In Jesus Christ we greet the Good Shepherd of humanity ; He
is the Good Shepherd under Whose care we can lack nothing,
and Whose glory it is that He 'giveth His Life for the sheep1.'
3. A third moral truism : Jesus Christ was humble. He might
have appeared, even to human eyes, as ' One naturally con
tented with obscurity ; wanting the restless desire for eminence
and distinction which is so common in great men ; hating to
put forward personal claims ; disliking competition and dis
putes who should be greatest ; . . . fond of what is - simple and
homely, of children, and poor peopley.' It might have almost
seemed as if His preternatural powers were a source of distress
and embarrassment to Him ; so eager was He to economize
their exercise and to veil them from the eyes of men. He was
particularly careful that His miracles should not add to His repu
tation2. Again and again He very earnestly enjoined silence
on those who were the subjects of His miraculous cures a. He
would not gratify persons whose motive in seeking His com
pany was a vain curiosity to see the proofs of His power0.
By this humility is Jesus Christ most emphatically distinguished
from the philosophers of the ancient world. Whatever else
they may have been, they were not humble. But Jesus Christ
loses His individuality if you separate Him in thought for one
moment from His ' great humility.' His humility is the key to
His whole life ; it is the measuring-line whereby His actions, His
sufferings, His words, His very movements must be meted in
order to be understood. ' Learn of Me,' He says, ' for I am meek
and lowly of heart ; and ye shall find rest unto your souls0.'
But what becomes of these integral features of His character
1 St. John x. 11. y Eoce Homo, pp. 178, 179.
* St. Luke viii. 51.
a St. Matt. ix. 30: ivffipinrjoaTO ; xii. 16: ii!ul\u\aiv avroU.
b St. Mark viii. II, 12 ; St. Matt. xvi. 1, 4 ; St. Luke xi. 16 ; St. John
vi. 30. c St. Matt. xi. 29.
IV] 0 2
196 Is Jesus Christ humble, if He is not God?
if, after considering the language which He actually used about
Himself, we should go on to deny that He is God ?
Is He, if He be not God, really humble 1 Is that reiterated
Self-assertion, to the accents of which we have been listening
this morning, consistent with any known form of creaturely
humility? Can Jesus thus bid us believe in Him, love Him,
obey Him, live by Him, live for Him ; can He thus claim to
be the universal Teacher and the universal Judge, the Way, the
Truth, the Life of humanity,—if He be indeed only man 1
What is humility but the honest recognition of truth respect
ing self? Could any mere man claim that place in thought,
in society, in history, that authority over conscience, that rela
tionship to the Most High; could he claim such powers and
duties, such a position, and such prerogatives as are claimed
by Jesus Christ, and yet be justly deemed ' meek and lowly
of heart ?' If Christ is God as well as Man, His language falls
into its place, and all is intelligible ; but if you deny His
Divinity, you must conclude that some of the most precious
sayings in the Gospel are but the outbreak of a preposterous
self-laudation ; they might wtll seem to breathe the very spirit
of another Lucifer d.
If 'Jesus Christ be not God, is He really unselfish? He bids
men make Himself the centre of their affections and their
thoughts ; and when God does this He is but recalling man
to that which is man's proper duty, to the true direction and
law of man's being. But deny Christ's Divinity, and what will
you say of the disinterestedness of His perpetual self-assertion6?
' Does my friend deny that the death of Jesus was wilfully incurred ? The
"orthodox" not merely admit but maintain it. Their creed justifies it by
the doctrine that his death was a " sacrifice" so pleasing to God as to expiate
the sins of the world. This honestly meets the objections to self-destruction ;
for how better could life be used than by laying it down for such a prize.'
« Felix, Je"sus-Christ, p. 314 ; Young, The Christ of History, p. 229.
h Newman, Phases, p. 154 : 'It sometimes seems to me the picture of a
conscious and wilful impostor. His general character is too high for this ;
and I therefore make deductions from the account. Still I do not see how
the present narrative could have grown up, if he had been really simple and
straightforward and not perverted by his essentially false position.' Mr. New
man is complaining that our Lord ' does not honestly and plainly renounce
pretension to miracle, as Mr. Martineau would,' but his language obviously
suggests a wider application, (p. 158.) 'I feel assured, a priori, that such
presumption [as that of claiming to be the Son of Man of Dan. vii.] must
have entangled him into evasions and insincerities, which naturally end in
crookedness of conscience and real imposture, however noble a man's com
mencement, and however unshrinking his sacrifice of goods and ease and
life.'
1 M. Renan indeed says, 'Jesus n'e"nonce pas un moment l'idee sacrilege
qu'il soit Dieu.' (Vie de Je"sus, p. 75.) Yet, 'on ne nie pas qu'il y eut dans
les affirmations de Je"sus le game de la doctrine qui devait plus tard faire de
lui une hypostase divine.' (Ibid. p. 247.) M. Renan even explains our
Lord's language as to His Person on the ground that ' l'iddalisme transcend-
ant de Je"9us ne lui permit jamais d'avoir une notion bien claire de sa propre
personnalite". II est son Fire, son Pere est lui.' (p. 244.) In other words,
our Lord did affirm His Divinity, but only because He was, unconsciously
perhaps, a Pantheist !
[ LECT.
Did Christ explain away His claims f 1 99
of God, in a communion so deep and absorbing as to obliterate
His sense of distinct human personality. Let this, I say, be
supposed to have been His meaning, and let His sincerity be
taken for granted. Who then shall anticipate the horror of His
soul or the fire of His words, when He is once made aware of
the terrible misapprehension to which his language has given
rise in the minds around Him 1 ' Thou being a man, makest
Thyself God.' The charge was literally true : being human, He
did make Himself God. Christians believe that He only 'made'
Himself that which He is. But if He is not God, where does
He make any adequate repudiation of a construction of His
words so utterly derogatory to the great Creator, so necessarily
abhorrent to a good man's thought ?
Is it urged that on one occasion He ' explained His claim to
Divinity by a quotation which implied that He shared that claim
with the chiefs of the theocracy ? ' It has already been shewn
that by that quotation our Lord only deprecated immediate
violence, and claimed a hearing for language which the Jews
themselves regarded as not merely allowable, but sacred. The
quotation justified His language only, and not His full meaning,
which, upon gaining the ear of the people, He again proceeded
to assert. Is it contended that in such sayings as that addressed
to His disciples, 'My Father is greater than Ik,' He abandoned
any pretension to be a Person internal to the Essential Life of
God 1 It may suffice to reply, that this saying can have no
such force, if its application be restricted, as the Latin Fathers
do restrict it, and with great apparent probability, to our Lord's
Manhood. But even if our Lord is here speaking, as the
Greeks generally maintain, of His essential Deity, His Words
still express very exactly a truth which is recognised and re
quired by the Catholic doctrine. The Subordination of the
Everlasting Son to the Everlasting Father is strictly compatible
with the Son's absolute Divinity ; it is abundantly implied in
our Lord's language ; and it is an integral element of the
ancient doctrine which steadily represents the Father as Alone
* St. John xiv. 28 : Tropeiop-ai wpbs rbv Uartpa ' Sri S Yiar^p p.ov ftttfav /iov
(art. For Patristic arguments against the Arian abuse of this text, see Suicer,
Thes. ii. p. 1368. The p.ei(ov6rris of the Father is referred by St. Athana-
sius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Hilary, to
His being the Unbegotten One ; by St. Cyril, St. Augustine (in loc. ; de
Trin. i. 7 ; Enchiridion, x.), St. Ambrose (torn. iii. p. 795), St. Leo (Ep. ad
Flav. xxviii. c. 4), to the Son's humiliation as incarnate. See the very full
but unsatisfactory note of Meyer in loc.
XV]
2oo Jesus Christ not sincere, if He is not God.
Unoriginate, the Fount of Deity in the Eternal Life of the
Ever-blessed Trinity1.
But surely an admission on the part of one in whom men saw
nothing more than a fellow-creature, that the Everlasting God
was ' greater' than himself, would fail to satisfy a thoughtful
listener that no claim to Divinity was advanced by the speaker.
Such an admission presupposes some assertion to which it stands
in the relation of a necessary qualification. If any good man of
our acquaintance should announce that God was 'greater' than
himself, should we not hold him to be guilty of something worse
than a stupid truism m 1 Would he not seem to imply that he
was not really a creature of God's hand t Would not his words
go to suggest that the notion of his absolute equality with God
was not to be dismissed as altogether out of the question ?
Should we not peremptorily remind him that the life of man is
related to the Life of God, not as the less to the greater, but as
the created to the Uncreated, and that it is an impertinent
irreverence to admit superiority of rank, where the real truth can
only be expressed by an assertion of radical difference of natures?
And assuredly a sane and honest man, who had been accused of
associating himself with the Supreme Being, could not content
himself with admitting that God was greater than himself.
Knowing himself to be only human, would he not insist again and
again, with passionate fervour, upon the incommunicable glory
of the great Creator 1 Would not a purely human Christ have
anticipated the burning words of the indignant Apostles at the
gate of Lystra 1 Far more welcome to human virtue most surely
it would have been, to be accused of blasphemy for meaning what
1 Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. iv. i. i : ' Decretum illud Synodi Nicaenre, quo
statuitur Filium Dei esse Qebv 4« 0eoS, Deum de Deo, suo calculo com-
prob&runt doctores Catholici, turn qui ante cum qui post Synodum illam
seripsere. Nam illi omnes uno ore docuerunt naturam perfectionesque
divinas, Patri Filioque competere non collateraliter aut coordinate, sed sub
ordinate ; hoc est, Filium eandem quidem naturam divinam cum Patre com-
munem habere, sed h, Patre comtmmicatam ; ita scilicet ut Pater solus naturam
illam divinam a se habeat, sive h, nullo alio, Filius autem a Patre ; proinde
Pater, Divinitatis qum in Filio est, fons, origo ac principium sit.' See Bull's
remarks on the fundamental character of the error of calling the Son auTo'fleos,
as though He were not begotten of the Father, Ibid. iv. i. 7. Also Petavius,
De Deo Deique proprietatibus, ii. 3, 6. Compare Hooker's Works, vol. i.,
Keble's Preface, p. lxxxi. When St. Athanasius calls our Lord avr6Bfos,
avTO(To<t>ia, &c, airis has the sense of 'full reality' as distinct from that of
' Self-origination ;' the idea is excluded that He had only a measure of Wisdom
or Divinity. See Petavius de Trin. vii. 11.
m Coleridge, Table-talk, p. 25.
[ LECT.
Insincerity of the Christ of M. Renan. 201
was never meant, than to be literally supposed to mean it. For
indeed there are occasions when silence is impossible to a sincere
soul". Especially is this the case when acquiescence in falsehood
is likely to gain personal reputation, when connivance at a mis
apprehension may aggrandize self, ever so slightly, at the cost of
others. How would the sincerity of a human teacher deserve
the name, if, passively, without repudiation, without protest, he
should allow language expressive whether of his moral elevation
or of his mystical devotion to be popularly construed into a
public claim to share the Kank and Name of the great God in
heaven ?
It is here that the so-termed historical Christ of M. Eenan,
who, as we are informed, is still the moral chief of humanity °,
would appear even to our natural English sense of honesty to be
involved in serious moral difficulties. M. Renan indeed assures
us, somewhat eagerly, that there are many standards of sincerity Pj
n See Dean Alford on St. John xix. 9.
0 Renan, Vie de Jésus, p. 457 : ' Cette sublime personne, qui chaque
jour préside encore au destin du monde, il est permis de l'appeler divine, non
en ce sens que Jésus ait absorbé tout le divin, ou lui ait été adéquat (pour
employer l'expression de la scolastique) mais en ce sens que Jésus est
l'individu qui a fait faire à son espèce le plus grand pas vers le divin.
L'humanité dans son ensemble offre un assemblage d'êtres bas, égoïstes,
supérieurs à l'animal en cela seul que leur égoïsme est plus réfléchi. Mais,
au milieu de cette uniforme vulgarité, des colonnes s'élèvent vers le ciel et
attestent une plus noble destinée. Jésus est la plus haute de ces colonnes
qui montrent à l'homme d'où il vient, et où il doit tendre. En lui s'est con
densé tout ce qu'il y a de bon et d'élevé dans notre nature.' On the other
hand, M. Renan is not quite consistent with himself, as he is of opinion that
certain Pagans and unbelievers were in some respects superior to our Lord.
'L'honnête et suave Marc-Aurèle, l'humble et doux Spinoza, n'ayant pas
cru au miracle, ont été exempts de quelques erreurs que Jésus partagea.'
(Ibid. p. 451.) Moreover, this superiority to our Lord seems to be shared
by that advanced school of sceptical enquirers to which M. Renan himself
belongs. ' Par notre extrême délicatesse dans l'emploi des moyens de con
viction, par notre sincérité absolue et notre amour désintéressé de l'idée pure,
nous avons fondé, nous tous qui avons voué notre vie à la science, un nouvel
idéal de moralité.' (Ibid.) Indeed, as regards our Lord, M. Renan suggests
that ' il est probable que beaucoup de ses fautes ont été dissimulées.' (Ibid,
p. 458.)
p Ibid. p. 252 : ' Pour nous, races profondément sérieuses, la conviction
signifie la sincérité avec soi-même. Mais la sincérité avec soi-même n'a pas
beaucoup de sens chez les peuples orientaux, peu habitués aux délicatesses
de l'esprit critique. Bonne foi et imposture sont des mots qui, dans notre
conscience rigide, s'opposent comme deux termes inconciliables. En Orient,
il y a de l'un à l'autre mille fuites et mille détours. Les auteurs de livres
apocryphes (de "Daniel," d"' Hénoch," par exemple), hommes si exaltés,
commettaient pour leur cause, et bien certainement sans ombre de scrupule,
IV]
aoa Moral defects of the Humanitarian Christ.
that is to say, that it is possible, under certain circumstances, to
acquiesce knowingly in what is false, while yet being, in some
transcendental sense, sincere. Thus, just as the Christ of
M. Renan can permit the raising of Lazarus to look like a
miracle, while he must know that the whole episode has been
a matter of previous arrangement?, so he can apparently use
language which is generally understood to claim Divinity, with
out being bound to explain that he is altogether human f. The
' ideal of humanity' contents himself, it appears, with a lower
measure, so to call it, of sincerity ; and while we are scarcely
embarrassed by the enquiry whether such sincerity is sincere or
y Channing might almost seem to have risen for a moment to the full
faith of the Church of Christ in the following beautiful words. Works, ii. 5 7 :
' I confess when I can escape the deadening power of habit, and can receive
the full import of such passages as the following : " Come unto Me all ye
that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest ;" "I am come to
seek and to save that which was lost;" " He that confesseth Me before men,
him will I confess before My Father in Heaven;" "Whosoever shall be
ashamed of Me before men, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when
He cometh in the glory of the Father with the holy angels;" "In My
Father's house are many mansions, I go to prepare a place for you ;" I say,
when I can succeed in realising the import of such passages, 1 feel myself
listening to a being such as never before and never since spoke in human
language. I am awed by the consciousness of greatness which these
simple words express ; and when I connect this greatness with the proofs of
Christ's miracles, I am compelled to speak with the centurion, " Truly this
was the Son of God." ' Alas ! that this language does not mean what we
might hope, is too certain from other passages in his writings. See e.g.
Works, ii. 510 : ' Christ is a being distinct from the one God.'
IV]
2o6 The Christ of history is the Christ of dogma.
Thyself before Thy creatures, Thou dost stand from age to age
at the bar of hostile and sceptical opinion ; yet assuredly from
age to age, by the assaults of Thine enemies no less than in the
faith of Thy believing Church, Thou art justified in Thy sayings
and art clear when Thou art judged. Of a truth, Thou art the
King of Glory, O Christ ; Thou art the Everlasting Son of the
Father.
[ LECT.
LECTURE V.
That Which was from the beginning, Which we have heard, Which we have
seen with our eyes, Which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled, of the Word of Life ; {for the Life was manifested, and we have
seen It, and bear witness, and shew unto you that Eternal Life, Which
was with the Father, and was manifested unto us ;) That Which we have
seen and heard declare we unto you.—I St. John i. 1-3.
twv \oiirtav rutv ewpatcdruv rbv Kfyiov, /coi us airejjarrifiSveve robs \6yovs av-
Twe* Kal wepl rod Kvplov riva a trap* CKeivuv aKTj/cdei, Kal irtpl ray Suud/xewv
aliTov, Kal irepl rijs bitiao-KaKtas, ws irapa rav avroirrwv rrjs (q>t]s rov A6yov
irap€t\r}(p&>s & TloXiicapTTOs, -navra o~6f!l<pwva rats ypatpais. Cf. Eus.
Hist. Eccl. v. 20. St. Irenseus succeeded St. Pothinus in the see of Lyons.
Pothinus was martyred a.d. 177, and Irenteus died a.d. 202.
h Adv. Hser. iii. 1. St. Ireneeus was probably born about a.d. 140.
1 Tertullian was born at Carthage about a.d. 160. Cave places his con
version to Christianity at a.d. 185, and his lapse into the Montanist heresy
at a.d. 199. Dr. Pusey (Libr. of Fathers) makes his conversion later,
a.d. 195, and his secession from the Church a.d. 201.
k Adv. Marc. iv. c. 2 : ' Constituimus imprimis evangelicum instrumentum
apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab Ipso
Domino sit impositum. Si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis
et post apostolos, quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de
gloria; studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, qua;
magistros apostolos fecit. Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Joannes et
Hattheeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant.'
1 Adv. Marc. iv. c. 5 : ' Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris
quoque patrocinabitur Evangeliis, qua; proinde per illas et secundum illas
habemus, Joannis dico et Matthcei, licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri
affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Nam et Luca; digestum Paulo adscribere
solent. Capit magistrorum videri qua; discipuli promulgarint.'
m Adv. Marcion. iv. 5.
V] P2
212 Witness borne to Saint. John's Gospel
of the synoptic Gospels to St. John n, and he terms the latter
the evayytkiov irvevfiaTiKovo. It is unnecessary to say that the
intellectual atmosphere of that famous Graeco-Egyptian school
would not have been favourable to any serious countenance of a
really suspected document. At Eome St. John's Gospel was
certainly received as being the work of that Apostle in the year
170. This is clear from the so-termed Muratorian fragment p ;
and if in receiving it the Eoman Church had been under a delu
sion so fundamental as is implied by the Tubingen hypothesis,
St. John's own pupil Polycarp might have been expected to have
corrected his Eoman brethren when he came to Eome in the
year 163. In the farther East, St. John's Gospel had already
been translated as a matter of course into the Peschito Syriac
versions. It had been translated in Africa into the Latin Versio
Itala r. At or soon after the middle of the century two works
n Westcott, Cation of the New Testament, 2nd ed. p. 104. See Mr.
Westcott's remarks on St. Clement's antecedents and position in the Church,
ibid. pp. 298, 299. St. Clement lived from about 165 to 220. He flourished
as a Christian Father under Severus and Caracalla, 193-220.
0 Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14, condensing Clement's account, says, rbv ii4vtoi
*\u6.virriv H&xaTov avviSSyra '6rt t& o-wfiariKa 4v rots evayye\lots SeSfawrai,
irporpairevTa virb tSiv yeupifiay, Xlviv^aTi OeocpupTjQevra, irvevfiaTLKiiy irotrjaat
p Westcott on the Canon, p. 170. The Muratorian fragment claims to
have been written by a contemporary of Pius I., who probably ruled the
Roman Church from about a.d. 142 to 157. 'Pastorem vero nuperrimi
temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathedrS urbis
Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre ejus.' Cf. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die
Kritik des N. T., p. 39, sqq.
1 On the difficulty of fixing the exact date of the Peschito, see Mr.
Westcott's remarks, Canon of New Testament, pp. 206-210. Referring
(1) to the Syriac tradition of its Apostolic origin at Edessa, repeated by
Gregory Bar Hebrseus; (2) to the necessary existence of an early Syriac
version, implied in the controversial writings of Bardesanes; (3) to the quo
tations of Hegesippus from the Syriac, related by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iv.
22) ; (4) to the antiquity of the language of the Peschito as compared with
that of St. Ephrem, and the high authority in which this version was held by
that Father ; (5) to the liturgical and general use of it by heretical as well as
orthodox Syrians ; and (6) to the early translations made from it ;—Mr.
Westcott concludes that in the absence of more copious critical resources
which might serve to determine the date of this version on philological
grounds, ' there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion which has ob
tained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation is to
be fixed within the first half of the second century.' (p. 211.) That it was
complete then in A. d. 150-160, we may assume without risk of serious error.
r This version must have been made before A. d. 1 70. ' How much more
ancient it really is cannot yet be discovered. Not only is the character of the
version itself a proof of its extreme age, but the mutual relation of different
[ LECT.
by Catholics of the Second Century. 213
were published which implied that the four Gospels had long
been received as of undoubted authority : I refer to the Harmo
nies of Theophilus B, Bishop of Antioch, and of Tatian *, the hete
rodox pupil of St. Justin Martyr. St. John is quoted by either
writer independently, in the work which was addressed by Theo
philus to Autolycus u, and in the Apology of Tatian x. When,
about the year 170, Apollinaris of Hierapolis points out the
bearings of the different evangelical narratives upon the Quarto-
deciman controversy, his argument implies a familiarity with
St. John. Apollinaris refers to the piercing of our Lord's Side?,
and Polycrates of Ephesus speaks of John as the disciple who
lay on the bosom of Jesus z. Here we see that the last Gospel
must have been read and heard in the Christian Churches with
a care which dwells upon its distinctive peculiarities. It is
surely inconceivable that a work of such primary claim to speak
on the question of highest interest for Christian believers could
have been forged, widely circulated, and immediately received
by Africans, by Romans, by Gauls, by Syrians, as a work of an
Apostle who had passed to his rest some sixty years before.
And, if the evidence before us ended here, we might fairly infer
that, considering the difficulties of communication between
Churches in the sub-apostolic age, and the various elements of
moral and intellectual caution, which, as notably in the case of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, were likely to delay the oecumenical
parts of it shew that it was made originally by different hands ; and if so, it
is natural to conjecture that it was coeval with the introduction of Chris
tianity into Africa, and the result of the spontaneous effort of African
Christians.' (Westcott on the Canon of the New Testament, pp. 224, 225.)
Mr. Westcott shews from Tertulhan (Adv. Prax. c. J ; De Monog. c. 11)
that at the end of the century the Latin translation of St. John's Gospel had
been so generally circulated in Africa, as to have moulded the popular theo
logical dialect. (Ibid. pp. 218, 219.)
" At latest Theophilus was bishop from a.d. 168 to 180. St. Jerome
Bays : ' Theophilus . . . quatuor evangelistarum in unum opus dicta com-
pingens, ingenii sui nobis monuments dimisit.' Epist. 121 (al. 151) ad
Algas. c. 6.
' Eus. Hist. Eccl. iv. 29 : 6 Tariavos avvityu&v riva xai trwayarrfiv ovk oIS'
ftiras tuv tvayyt\lav ffvvQtls rb At& reffffdpav tovto irpo(Tiav6p.a.fftv, Theo-
doret, Haer. Fab. i. 20; Westcott, Canon, pp. 279, 280, sqq.
u Ad Autal. ii. 31. p. 174, ed. Wolf. Cf. St. John i. 1, 3. Theophilus is
the first writer who quotes St. John hy name.
* Orat. contr. Greec. c. 4 (St. John iv. 24); c. 5 (Ibid. i. 1); c. 13
(Ibid. i. 5); c. 19 (Ibid. i. 3).
y Chron. Pasch. p. 14; cf. St. John xix. 34; Routh,i. 160, sq.; Westcott,
Canon of New Testament, pp. 198, 199.
" Apud Eus. v. 24. Cf. St. John xiii. 23, xxi. 20.
V]
ai4 Witness borne to Saint "John's Gospel
reception of a canonical book, St. John's Gospel must have been
in existence at the beginning of the second century.
But the evidence does not desert us at this point. Through
Tatian we ascend into the earlier portion of the century as
represented by St. Justin Martyr. It is remarkable that
St. Justin's second Apology, written in 161, contains fewer
allusions to the Gospels than the earlier Apology written in
138, and than the intermediate composition of this Father, his
Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. Now passing by recent theories
respecting a Gospel of the Hebrews11 or a Gospel of Peter, by
which an endeavour has been made to weaken St. Justin's
witness to the synoptic Evangelists, let us observe that his
testimony to St. John is particularly distinct. Justin's emphatic
reference of the doctrine of the Logos to our Lord0, not to
mention his quotation of John the Baptist's reply to the mes
sengers of the Jews0, and of our Saviour's language about the
new birthd, makes his knowledge of St. John's Gospel much
more than a probability6. Among the great Apostolic fathers,
St. Ignatius alludes to St. John in his Letter to the Romans f,
and St. Polycarp quotes the Apostle's first Epistles. In these
sub-apostolic writings there are large districts of thought and
a On the identity of the ' Gospel of the Hebrews' with the original Hebrew
draught of the Gospel of St. Matthew, see the remarks of Tischendorf in his
pamphlet, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? pp. I7_I9- To that
admirable compendium I am indebted for several remarks in the text of this
and the following pages.
b Cf. Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? p. 16 : 'Die
Uebertragung des Logos auf Christus, von der uns keine Spur weder in der
Synoptikern noch in den altesten Parallelschriften derselben vorliegt, an
mehreren Stellen Justins von Johannes abzuleiten ist.'
° Ibid. Dialog, cum Tryph. 88. Cf. St. John i. 20.
d Apolog. i. 61": Kal ybp & Xpiffrbs einev' 4*Av fj^i avayevvnBriTf, oh ph
el(T€\9r]T€ €ts rty $a<ri\€tay rav oi/pavwv' "On 5e Kal oZvvaTov tls ray pfrpas
Ttov TeKovffwi/ rovs aVa| yevo/xevovs tp.&Tjvai (pavtpbv natjiv iffri, Cf. Westcott,
Canon of the New Testament, p. 130.
e Cf. however Mr. Westcott's remarks (Canon of the New Testament,
p. 145) on the improbability of St. John's being quoted in apologetic writings
addressed to Jews and heathen. St. Justin nevertheless does ' exhibit types
of language and doctrine which, if not immediately drawn from St. John (why
not?), yet mark the presence of his influence and the recognition of his
authority.' Westcott, Ibid. Besides the passages already alluded to, St.
Justin appears to refer to St. John xii. 49 in Dialog, cum Tryph. c. 56 ; to
St. John i. 13 in Dialog, c. 63 ; to St. John vii. 12 in Dialog, c. 69 ; to St.
John i. 12 in Dialog, c. 123. Cf. Liicke, Comm. Ev. Joh. p. 34, sqq.
' St. Ign. ad. Rom. c. 7. Cf. St. John vi. 32, 48, 53, xvi. II.
e Ep. ad Phil. c. 7. Cf. 1 St. John iv. 3.
[ LECT.
by Catholics of the Second Century. 215
expression, of a type unmistakeably Johannean1", which, like
St. Justin's doctrine of the Logos, witness no less powerfully to
the existence of St. John's writings than direct citations. The
Tübingen writers lay emphasis upon the fact that in the short
fragment of Papias which we possess, nothing is said about
St. John's Gospel*. But at least we have no evidence that
Papias did not speak of it in that larger part of his writings
which has been lost! ; and if his silence is a valid argument
against the fourth Gospel, it is equally available against the
Gospel of St. Luke, and even against each one of those four
Epistles which the Tübingen writers themselves recognise as the
work of St. Paul.
The testimony of the Catholic Church during this century is
supplemented by that of the contemporary heretics. St. Irenseus
has pointed out how the system of the celebrated Gnostic,
h Cf. St. Bam. Ep. v. vi. xii. (cf. St. John iii. 14); Herrn. Past. Simil. ix. 12
(cf. Ibid. x. 7, 9, xiv. 6) ; St. Ignat. ad Philad. 7 (cf. Ibid. iii. 8) ; ad Tral. 8
(cf. Ibid. vi. 51) ; ad Magnes. 7 (cf. Ibid. xii. 49, x. 30, xiv. 11) ; ad Rom. 7
(cf. Ibid. vi. 32).
1 Meyer, Evan. Johann. Einl. p. 14: 'Die Continuität [i.e. of the evidence
in favour of the fourth Gospel] geht sowohl von Irenaus über Polycarp, als
auch von Papias, sofern diesem der Gebrauch des ersten Briefs Job. bezeugt
ist, über den Presbyter Johannes, auf den Apostel selbst zurück. Dass aber
das Fragment des Papias das Evangel. Job. nicht erwähnt, kann nichts
verschlagen, da es überhaupt keine schriftlichen Quellen, aus welchen er seine
Nachrichten geschöpft habe, aufführt, vielmehr das Verfahren des Papias
dahin bestimmt, dass er bei den Apostelschülern die Aussagen der Apostel
erkundet habe, und dessen ausdrücklichen Grundsatz ausspricht : ov yäp rck
£k tüv ßißKuov roaovT&v fie wtpeKeiv {nrtAdpßavov, ttaov tä trapa £(*htws tpuvijs
/col ixevoiaris. Papias wirft hier die damals vorhandenen evangelischen
Schriften (räv ßtß\üov) deren eine Menge war (Luk. i. 1) alle ohne Auswahl
zusammen, und wie er das Evangel. Matthsei und das des Marcus mit
darunter begriffen hat, welche beide er später besonders erwähnt, so kann er
auch das Evangel. Joh. mit bei rar ßißKiav gemeint haben, da Papias einen
Begriff von kanonischen Evangelien als solchen offenbar noch nicht hat (vergl.
Credn. Beitr. i. p. 23), und diese auszuzeichnen nicht veranlasst ist. Wenn
aber weiterhin Eusebius noch zwei Aussagen des Papias über die Evangelien
des Mark, und Matthäus anführt, so wird damit unser Evangelium nicht
ausgeschlossen, welches Papias in anderen Theilen seines Buchs erwähnt
haben kann, sondern jene beiden Aussagen werden nur deshalb bemerklich
gemacht, weil sie über die Entstehung jener Evangelien etwas Absonderliches,
besonders Merkwürdiges enthalten, wie auch das als besonders bemerkens-
werth von Eusebius angeführt wird, dass Papias aus zwei epistolischen
Schriften (1 Joh. u. 1 Petr.) Zeugnisse gebrauche, und eine Erzählung habe,
welche sich im Hebräer-Evangel. finde.' Cf. also Westcott, Canon, p. 65.
I It should be added that Papias is stated by Eusebius (iii. 39) to have
quoted St. John's First Epistle. This he could hardly have done, without
acknowledging St. John's Gospel.
V]
3i6 Witness borne to Saint John's Gospel
Valentinus, was mainly based upon a perversion of St. John's
Gospel k. This assertion is borne out by that remarkable work,
the Philosophumena of St. Hippolytus, which, as we in Oxford
well remember, was discovered some few years since at Mount
Athos1. Of the pupils of Valentinus, Ptolemseus quotes from
the prologue of St. John's Gospel in his extant letter to Flora111.
Heracleon, another pupil, wrote a considerable commentary
upon St. John11. Heracleon lived about 150; Valentinus was
a contemporary of Marcion, who was teaching at Rome about
1 40. Marcion had originally admitted the claims of St. John's
Gospel, and only denied them when, for the particular purposes
of his heresy, he endeavoured at a later time to demonstrate an
opposition between St. Paul and St. John0. Basilides taught
at Alexandria under Adrian, apparently about the year 120.
Basilides is known to have written twenty-four books of com
mentaries on the Gospelp ; but if it cannot be certainly affirmed
that some of these commentaries were on St. John, it is certain
from St. Hippolytus that Basilides appealed to texts of St. John
in favour of his systemi. Before Basilides, in the two first
* St. Irenseus (Hser. iii. II, 7) lays down the general position : 'Tanta est
circa Evangelia hsec firmitas, ut et ipsi hseretici testimonium reddant eis, et
ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam.'
After illustrating this from the cases of the Ebionites, Marcion, and the Ce-
rinthians, he proceeds, ' Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo [sc. evangelio]
quod est secundum Johannem plenissimi utentei, ad ostensionem conjuga-
tionum suarum ; ex ipso detegentur nihil recte dicentes.' ' Gewiss war (says
Meyer) die ganze Theosophie des Valentin mit auf Johanneischem Grund
und Boden erwachsen. . . . Die Valentinianische Gnosis mit ihren Aeonen,
Syzygien u. s. w. verhalt sich zum Prolog des Joh. wie das kiinstlich Gemachte
und Ausgesponnene zum Einfachen und Schbpferischen.' (Einl. in Joh. p. 12,
note.) For an illustration of the truth of this, cf. St. Iren. adv. Hser. i. 8, 5.
1 Cf. Refut. Haer.vi.35, init., for the use made by Valentinus of St. John x. 8.
m Apud St. Epiph. adv. Har. lib. i. torn. i. Hser. 33 ; Ptol. ad Flor. Cf.
St. John i. 3 ; also Stieren's St. Irenseus, vol. i. p. 924.
tt Fragments of Heracleon's Commentary on St. John, collected from
Origen, are published at the end of the first vol. of Stieren's edition of
St. Irenseus, pp. 938-971. St. John iv. is chiefly illustrated by these remains
of the great Valentinian commentator. Two points strike one on perusal of
them: (1) that before Heracleon's time St. John's Gospel must have acquired,
even among heretics, the highest authority ; (2) that Heracleon has con
tinually to resort to interpretations so forced (as on St. John i. 3, i. 18,
ii. 17; cited by "Westcott, Canon, p. 266, note) as 'to prove sufficiently that
St. John's Gospel was no Gnostic work.'
0 Tertullian. adv. Marcion. iv. 3 ; De Carne Christi, c. 2 ; quoted by
Teschendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst ? pp. 25, 26.
P Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 7, 7.
1 Refut. Hser. vii. 22 (quoted by Teschendorf, ubi supr.), where Basilides
uses St. John i. 9, ii. 4.
[LECX.
by Heretics of the Second Century. 217
decades of the century, we find Ophitic Gnostics, the Naase-
niansr, and the Peratse8, appealing to passages in St. John's
Gospel, which was thus already, we may say in the year 110,
a recognised authority among sects external to the Catholic
Church.
It may further be observed that the whole doctrine of the
Paraclete in the heresy of Montanus is a manifest perversion of
the treatise on that subject in St. John's Gospel, the wide
reception of which it accordingly presupposes*. The Alogi,
who were heretical opponents of Montanism, rejected St. John's
Gospel for dogmatic reasons, which are really confirmatory of
the general tradition in its favour". Nor may we forget Celsus,
the keen and satirical opponent of the Christian faith, who
wrote, even according to Dr. Hilgenfeld, between 160 and 170,
but more probably, as is held by other authorities, as early as
150. Celsus professes very ostentatiously to confine himself
to the writings of the disciples of Jesus35; but he refers to
St. John's Gospel in a manner which would be utterly incon
ceivable if that book had been in his day a lately completed, or
indeed a hardly completed forgeryy.
This evidence might be largely reinforced from other quarters",
and especially by an examination of that mass of apocryphal
literature which belongs to the earlier half of the second century,
* Refut. Hser. v. 6 sqq., 8 (St. John i. 3, 4) ; c. 9 (Ibid. iv. 21, and iv. 10) :
quoted by Teschendorf.
• Ibid. v. 12 sqq., 16 (St. John iii. 17, i. 1-4) ; c. 17 (Ibid. viii. 44).
' See however Meyer, Einl. in Joh. p. 13, for the opinion that Montanism
originally grew out of belief in the Parousia of our Lord. Baur, Christenthum,
p. 213. The Paraclete of Montanus was doubtless very different from the
Paraclete of St. John's Gospel. Still St. John's Gospel must have furnished
the name ; and it is probable that the idea of the Montanistic Paraclete is
originally due to the same source, although by a rapid development, con
tortion, or perversion, the Divine Gift announced by our Lord had been ex
changed for Its heretical caricature. The rejection of the promise of the
Paraclete alluded to by St. Irenseus (adv. Hser. iii. 1 1 . 9) proceeded not from
Montanists, but from opponents to Montanism, who erroneously identified
the teaching of St. John's Gospel with that heresy.
11 St. Epiph. Hter. li. 3. Cf. Pressense', Je'sus-Christ, p. 227.
1 Origen, contr. Celsum, ii. 74-
J Ibid. i. 67; cf. St. John ii. 18. Contr. Celsum, ii. 31, 36, 55; cf.
St. John xx. 17.
'E.g. the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, Eus. v. 1, which
quotes St. John xvi. 2 as an utterance of our Lord Himself. Athenagoras,
Leg. pro Christianis, 10 : cf. St. John i. 1-11, xvii. 21-23. The Clementine
Homilies, xix. 22 ; cf. St. John ix. 2, 3, iii. 52, x. 9, 27. Recognitions,
vi. 9 ; cf. St John iii. 3-5, ii. 48, v. 23. Ibid. v. 12 ; cf. St. John viii. 34.
218 The Fourth Gospel certainly Saint Johns.
and the relation of which to St. John's Gospel has lately
been very clearly exhibited by an accomplished scholar*. But
we are already in a position to admit that the facts before us
force back the date of St. John's Gospel within the lines of the
first centuryb. And when this is done the question of its
authenticity is practically decided. It is irrational to suppose
that a forgery claiming the name and authority of the beloved
disciple could have been written and circulated beneath his very
eyes, and while the Church was still illuminated by his oral
teaching. Arbitrary theories about the time which is thought
necessary to develope an idea cannot rightly be held to counter
balance such a solid block of historical evidence as we have been
considering. This evidence shews that, long before the year
1 60, St. John's Gospel was received throughout orthodox and
heretical Christendom, and that its recognition may be traced
up to the Apostolic age itself. Ewald shall supply the words
with which to close the foregoing considerations. ' Those who
since the first discussion of this question have been really con
versant with it, never could have had and never have had a
moment's doubt. As the attack on St. John has become fiercer
and fiercer, the truth during the last ten or twelve years has
been more and more solidly established, error has been pursued
into its last hiding-places, and at this moment the facts before
us are such that no man who does not will knowingly to choose
error and to reject truth, can dare to say that the fourth Gospel
is not the work of the Apostle John0.'
Certainly Ewald here expresses himself with vehemence.
Some among yourselves may possibly be disposed to complain
a Teschendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? p. 35, sqq.
That the Acta Pilati in particular were composed at the beginning of the
second century, appears certain from the public appeal to them which
St. Justin makes in his Apology to the Roman Emperor. The Acta Pilati
'presuppose not only the synoptists, but particularly and necessarily the
Gospel of St. John. It is not that we meet with a passage here and there
quoted from that Gospel. If that were the case we might suspect later
interpolation. The whole history of the condemnation of Jesus is based
essentially upon St. John's narrative; while in the accounts of the Cruci
fixion and the Resurrection, it is rather certain passages of the synoptists
which are particularly suggested.'
b Pressense\ Je'sus-Christ, p. 232. ' Rien n'est plus vain que de vouloir
faire sortir du mouvement des idfes au second siecle l'Evangile, qui a pre"-
cise'ment donne" le branle a ce mouvement, et le domine apres l'avoir
enfanteV
0 Review of Renan's Vie de Jdsus, in the Gottingen Scientific Journal,
5 Aug. 1863 ; quoted by Gratry, Je'sus-Christ, p. 119.
[ LECT.
(i) It is supplementary to thefirst three. 219
of him as being too dogmatic. For it may be that you have
made impatience of certainty a part of your creed ; and you
may hold that a certain measure of cautious doubt on all sub
jects, is inseparable from true intellectual culture. You may urge
in particular that the weight of external testimony in favour of
St. John's Gospel does not silence the difficulties which arise
upon an examination of its contents. You point to the use of
a mystical and metaphysical terminology, to the repetition of
abstract expressions, such as Word, Life, Light, Truth, Para
clete. You remark that St. John's Gospel exhibits the Life of
our Lord under an entirely new aspect. Not to dwell im
moderately upon points of detail, you insist that the plan of our
Lord's life, the main scenes of His ministry, all His exhibitions
of miraculous power save two, the form and matter of His dis
courses, nay, the very attitude and moral physiognomy of Hia
opponents, are so represented in this Gospel as to interfere with
your belief in its Apostolical origin.
But are not these peculiarities of the Gospel explained when
we consider the purpose with which it was written f
1. St. John's Gospel is in the first place an historical sup
plement. It was designed to chronicle discourses and events
which had been omitted in the narratives of the three preceding
Evangelists. Christian antiquity attests this design with re
markable unanimity^. It is altogether arbitrary to assert that
if St. John had seen the works of earlier Evangelists he would
have alluded to them ; and that if he had intended to supply
the omissions of their narratives he would have formally an
nounced his intention of doing so6. It is sufficient to observe
that the literary conventionalities of modern Europe were not
those of the sacred writers, whether of the Synagoguef or of the
Church. An inspired writer does his work without the self-
consciousness of a modern composer ; he is not necessarily
careful to define his exact place in literature, his precise obliga
tions to, or his presumed improvements upon, the labours of his
predecessors. He is the organ of a Higher Intelligence ; he
4 See especially the remarkable passage in Eus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 24, St. Epiph.
Hser. ii. 51.
e These arguments of Lticke are noticed by Dr. Wordsworth, New Test,
part i. p. Z06.
f 'The later prophets of the Old Testament enlarge upon and complete
the prophecies of the earlier. But they do not mention their names, or
declare their own purpose to do what they do.' Townson, pp. 134-147;
quoted by Dr. Wordsworth, ubi supr.
V]
220 (2) Saint Johns Gospel is
owes both what he borrows and what he is believed to originate
to the Mind Which inspires him to originate, or Which guides
him to select. While the stream of sacred truth is flowing forth
from his entranced and burning soul, and is being forthwith
crystallized in the moulds of an imperishable language, the
eagle-eyed Evangelist does not stoop from heaven to earth for
the purpose of guarding or reserving the rights of authorship,
by displaying his care to acknowledge its obligations. Certainly
St. John does repeat in part the narratives of his predecessors?.
But this repetition does not interfere with the supplementary
character of his work as a whole11. And yet his Gospel is not
only or mainly to be regarded as an historical supplement. It
exhibits the precision of method and the orderly development of
ideas which are proper to a complete doctrinal essay or treatise.
It is indeed rather a treatise illustrated by history, than a history
written with a theological purpose. Viewed in its historical
relation to the first three Gospels, it is supplemental to them ;
but this relative character is not by any means an adequate
explanation of its motive and function. It might easily have
been written if no other Evangelist had written at all ; it
has a character and purpose which are strictly its own; it
is part of a great whole, yet it is also, in itself, organically
perfect.
2. St. John's Gospel is a polemical treatise. It is addressed
to an intellectual world widely different from that which had
been before the minds of the earlier Evangelists. The earliest
forms of Gnostic thought are recognisable in the Judaizing
theosophists whom St. Paul has in view in his Epistles to the
Ephesians and the Colossians. These Epistles were written at
the least some thirty years before the fourth Gospel. The
fourth Gospel confronts or anticipates a more developed Gno
sticism ; although we may observe in passing that it certainly
does not contain references to any of the full-grown Gnostic
s As in chaps, vi. and xii.
h M. Eenan admits the supplementary character of St. John's Gospel, but
attributes to the Evangelist a motive of personal pique in writing it. He was
annoyed at the place assigned to himself in earlier narratives ! ' On est tente-
de croire, que Jean, dans sa vieillesse, ayant lu les re'cits e'vange'liques qui
circulaient, d'une part, y remarqua diverses inexactitudes, de l'autre, fut
froisse' de voir qu'on ne lui accordait pas dans l'histoire du Christ une assez
grande place ; qu'alors il commenca h dieter une foule de choses qu'il savait
mieux que les autres, avec I'intention de montrer que, dans beaucoup de cos oH
on ne parlait que de Pierre, il avait figuri avec et avant lui.' Vie de Je"sus,
pp. xxvii. xxviii.
[ LECT.
a polemical treatise. 331
systems which belong to the middle of the second century. The
fourth Gospel is in marked opposition to the distinctive po
sitions of Ebionites, of Docetse, of Cerinthians. But among
these the Cerinthian gnosis appears to be more particularly
contemplated. In its earlier forms especially, Gnosticism was
as much a mischievous intellectual method as a formal heresy.
The Gnostic looked upon each revealed truth merely in the
light of an addition to the existing stock of materials ready to
his hand for speculative discussion. He handled it accordingly
with the freedom which was natural to a belief that it was in no
sense beyond the range of his intellectual grasp. He com
mingled it with his cosmical or his psychological theories ; he
remodelled it ; he submitted it to new divisions, to new com
binations. Thus his attitude toward Christianity was friendly
and yet supercilious. But he threatened the faith with utter
destruction, to be achieved by a process of eclectic interpretation.
Cerinthus was an early master of this art. Cerinthus as a
Chiliastic Judaizer was naturally disposed to Humanitarianism.
As an eclectic theorist, who had been trained in the ' teaching of
the Egyptians5,' he maintained that the world had been created
by ' some power separate and distinct from Him Who is above
all.' Jesus was not born of a virgin ; He was the son of Joseph
and Mary ; He was born naturally like other men. But the
^Eon Christ had descended upon Jesus after His baptism, in the
form of a dove, and had proclaimed the unknown Father, and
had perfected the virtues of Jesus. The spiritual impassible
Christ had flown back to heaven on the eve of the Passion of
Jesus ; the altogether human Jesus of Cerinthus had suffered
and had risen alone K To this fantastic Christ of the Cerinthian
peculiar to, and really of frequent occurrence in St. John are by no means
unknown to the Synoptists. E. g. The antithesis between Light and darkness.
4. As to the matter of Christ's teaching :—Baur begs the whole question
by saying that ' the discourses in St. John could not be historical, since
they are essentially nothing more than an explanation of the Logos-idea
put forth by that writer.' This might be true if the doctrine of the
Logos had been the product of Gnostic speculations. But if Jesus was
really the Divine Son, manifesting Himself as such to men, such language
as that reported by St. John is no more than we should expect. St. John
never represents our Lord as announcing His Divinity in the terms in
which it is announced in the Prologue to the Gospel ; he would have
done so, had he really been creating a fictitious Jesus designed to illus
trate a particular theosophic speculation. This is discussed hereafter,
p. 364. See Pressense', Je'sus-Christ, p. 244; Luthardt, das Jobanneische
Evangelium, pp. 26-35. p St. John xx. 31.
226 Doctrine of the Eternal Word
the religious insight of the unlettered and the poor, while the
learned can sometimes see in him only the weary repetition of
metaphysical abstractions. The poor understand this sublime
revelation of God, the Creator of the world, as pure Light and
Truth. They understand the picture of a moral darkness which
commits and excuses sin, and which hates the light. They
receive gratefully and believingly the Son of God, made Man,
and conquering evil by the laying down His Life. They follow,
with the experience of their own temptations, or sins, or hopes,
or fears, those heart-searching conversations with Nicodemus,
with the Samaritan woman, with the Jews. In truth, St. John's
language and, above all, the words of Christ in St. John, are
as simple as they are profound. They still speak peace and joy
to little children ; they are still a stumbling-block to, and a
condemnation of, the virtual successors of Cerinthus.
II. If there were nothing else to the purpose in the whole of
the New Testament, those first fourteen verses of the fourth
Gospel would suffice to persuade a believer in Holy Scripture of
the truth that Jesus Christ is absolutely God. It is a mistake
to regard those fourteen verses as a mere prefatory attack upon
the gnosis of Cerinthus, having no necessary connexion with the
narrative which follows, and representing nothing essential to
the integrity of the Apostle's thought. For, as Baur very truly
observes, the doctrine of the prologue is ' the very fundamental
idea which underlies the whole ' Johannean theologyi.' It is not
enough to say that between the prologue and the history which
follows there exists an intimate organic connexion. The pro
logue is itself the beginning of the history. ' It is impossible,'
says Baur, 'to deny that "the Word made flesh r" is one and
the same subject with the Man Christ Jesus on the one hand,
and with the Word Who " was in the beginning, Who was with
God, and Who was God," on the other9.'
Taking then the prologue of St. John's Gospel in connexion
with the verses which immediately succeed it, let us observe that
St. John attaches to our Lord's Person two names which to
gether yield a complete revelation of His Divine glory. Our
Lord is called the ' Word,' and the ' Only-begotten Son.' It is
doubtless true, as Neander observes, that 'the first of these
names was' put prominently forward at Ephesus, 'in order to
lead those who busied themselves with speculations on the
4 St. John i. 1 4 : 4 A070S trap£ iyivero, Hal ianfyuatv l» v/uv, tea! iBtaadfifOa
r^jv $6£av avrov.
e Ibid. ver. 16 : nal 2k rov v\7ip6fiaros avrov TjfMis ndvres i\d$ofi*v.
f Ibid. ver. 14 : v\-i\pi)s x^PtTOS Ka^ a\7i9eias.
K Ibid, i, 12: toot 8e eAajSov avrovt ebxitiv abrois 4£ova'lav rtKva ®eov
yevetrOal.
h ayamfros, St. Matt. iii. 17, xii. 18, xvii. 5 ; St. Mark i. 11, ix. 7, xii. 6;
St. Luke iii. 22, ix. 35. Cod. Alex, reads 4K\(\tynivov, xx. 13; cf.
2 St. Peter i. 1 7.
1 Rom. viii. 32 : rov ISlov T10O ovk i<pei<raro. Ibid. ver. 3 : rbv iavrov Tibv
veutyas.
k St. John i. 14 : 46eao-dp.e0a tV b~6£av avrov, $6£av as fiovoyevovs iraph
TlarpSs. Ibid. x. 18 : 6 novoyevfys Ttdy, 6 wv els rbv k6\ttov rov Harp6s. Ibid,
iii. 16 : [b ®eds] rbv Tibv avrov rov povoyevri ttwKev. Ibid. ver. 18 : 6 5e frij
wzoTezW ^5tj tctttpirai, '6ti juJ; rrenlarevKtv els to ovofjux rov fiovoyevovs Ti'oC
rov &eov. Cf. I St. John iv. 9 : rbv Tibv avrov rov fiovoyevtj inreoraKKtv d
©cos fls rbv k6(t/iov, 'Iva £f]°~a>uev oV avrov. The word fiovoytvfis is used by
St. Luke of the son of the widow of Nain (vii. 1 2), of the daughter of Jairus
(viii. 42), and of the lunatic son of the man who met our Lord on His coming
down from the mount of the transfiguration (ix. 38). In Heb. si. 17 it is
applied to Isaac, uovoyttrfis means in each of these cases 1 that which exists
once only, that is, singly in its kind.' (Tholuck, Comm. in Joh. i. 14.) God
has one Only Son Who by nature and necessity is His Son.
234 ' Word' and 'Son' complete andgztard each other.
manifesting this Sonship to the world ', the sense of the word
fiovoyevrjs remains in St. John, and it is plainly ' defined by its
context to relate to something higher than any event occurring
in time, however great or beneficial to the human race m.' The
Only-begotten Son11 is in the bosom of the Father (6 i>v els rbv
koKttov tov Harpos) just as the Logos is npos rbv Oeov, ever con
templating, ever, as it were, moving towards Him in the ceaseless
activities of an ineffable communion. The Son is His Father's
equal, in that He is partaker of His nature : He is His Subordi
nate, in that this Equality is eternally derived. But the Father
worketh hitherto and the Son works ; the Father hath life in
Himself, and has given to the Son to have life in Himself ; all
men are to honour the Son even as they honour the Father °.
Each of these expressions, the Word and the Son, if taken
alone, might have led to a fatal misconception. In the language
of Church history, the Logos, if unbalanced by the idea of Sonship,
might have seemed to sanction Sabellianism. The Son, without
the Logos, might have been yet more successfully pressed into
the service of Arianism. An Eternal Thought or Keason, even
although constantly tending to express itself in speech, is of itself
too abstract to oblige us to conceive of it as of a personal Sub
sistence. On the other hand the filial relationship carries with
it the idea of dependence and of comparatively recent origin,
even although it should suggest the reproduction in the Son of
all the qualities of the Father. Certainly St. John's language in
his prologue protects the Personality of the Logos, and unless
he believed that God could be divided or could have had a
beginning, the Apostle teaches that the Son is co-eternal with
the Father. Yet the bare metaphors of 'Word' and ' Son,' taken
separately, might lead divergent thinkers to conceive of Him to
Whom they are applied, on the one side as an impersonal quality
or faculty of God, on the other, as a concrete and personal but in
ferior and dependent being. But combine them, and each corrects
the possible misuse of the other. The Logos, Who is also the
Son, cannot be an impersonal and abstract quality ; since such
an expression as the Son would be utterly misleading, unless it
implied at the very least the fact of a personal subsistence dis
tinct from that of the Father. On the other hand, the Son, Who
1 Acts xiii. 32, 33 ; Rom. i. 4. Compare on the other hand, Heb. v. 8.
m Newman's Arians, p. 174.
n St. John i. 18, A punnrytviis T!6s, where however the Vatican and Sinaitic
MSS. and Cod. Ephr. read 6 novoyepfc 0EO2. For the Patristic evidence
on the subject, see Alford in loo. 0 St. John. v. 17, 23, 26.
[ LECT.
Manifestation of the Word in history. 235
is also the Logos, cannot be of more recent origin than the
Father ; since the Father cannot be conceived of as subsisting
without that Eternal Thought or Eeason Which is the Son. Nor
may the Son be deemed to be in any respect, save in the order of
Divine subsistence, inferior to the Father, since He is identical
with the eternal intellectual Life of the Most High. Thus each
metaphor reinforces, supplements, and protects the other. Taken
together they exhibit Christ before His Incarnation as at once
personally distinct from, and yet equal with, the Father ; He is
That personally subsisting and 'Eternal Life, Which was with
the Father, and was manifested unto us P.'
St. John's Gospel is a narrative of that manifestation. It
is a Life of the Eternal Word tabernacling in Human Nature
among men0.. The Hebrew schools employed a similiar ex
pression to designate the personal presence of the Divinity
in this finite world. In St. J ohn's Gospel the Personality of
Christ makes Itself felt as Eternal and Divine at wellnigh every
step of the narrative r. Each discourse, each miracle, nay, each
separate word and act, is a fresh ray of glory streaming forth
from the Person of the Word through the veil of His assumed
Humanity. The miracles of the Word Incarnate are frequently
called His works a. The Evangelist means to imply that ' the
wonderful is only the natural form of working for Him in Whom
all the fulness of God dwells.' Christ's Divine Nature must
1 St. Matt. ix. 2-6; St. Luke v. 20, 24. » Ibid. xvi. 16, 17.
x Ibid, xxviii. 19. Cf. Waterland's Eighth Sermon at Lady Moyer's Lec
ture, Works, vol. ii. p. 171.
y St. Luke vii. 35 : 4SiKai<a97i tj trotpia anh rwv tskvwv avTT]S iramtev. St.
Matt. xi. 19, and apparently St. Luke xi. 49, where ij aotpla tov 0eoD corres
ponds to iyti in St. Matt, xxiii. 34.
* St. Matt. xi. 27: ouSfis fatyiviiaitet rbv Tibv tl i Uariip- oiSh rhv
IlaTtpa rls iiriyivthffKei, et frij 6 Tibs, Kal $ 4av PovK-ryrai 6 Tibs airoKa\{nl/cu.
St. Luke x. 22 : ouSels yiixtitricei rls 4ffrty 6 Tibs ei ju^ 6 IlaT^p, Kal rts
Igtiv 6 riaT^p, ct /i?/ 6 Tibs, Kal £ ikv f3ov\ijTai 6 Tibs aironaKtyai. See
Mill on Myth. Interp. p. 59.
• St. Matt. xii. 6: Ktyu 84 ifuv Srt tou lepov iie~£6>> [Tisch.] Iotiv S>8e.
b Ibid. xi. 11, xii. 41, 42, xxi. 33, sqq.; St. Luke vii. 28.
c St. Matt. xi. 27 ; St. Luke x. 22 ; St. Matt, xxviii. 18 : 4$66ri p.01 iratra
l£ovala in obpavif nal M yrjs. d St. Matt, xxviii. 19.
25a Our Lord's claims to rule the souls of men,
not with subordinate or accidental forms of evil, but with the
evil principle itself, with the prince of evil e. And, as the
Absolute Good, Christ tests the moral worth or worthlessness of
men by their acceptance or rejection, not of His doctrine but of
His Person. It is St. Matthew who records such sentences as
the following : ' Be not ye called Eabbi ; for One is your Master,
even Christ f;' 'He that loveth father or mother more than
Me is not worthy of MeS;' 'Whosoever shall confess Me before
men, him will I confess also before My Father h ;' ' Come unto
Me, all ye that labour, and I will give you rest';' 'Take My
yoke upon yon, and learn of Me k.' In St. Matthew then Christ
speaks as One Who knows Himself to be a universal and infallible
Teacher in spiritual things; Who demands submission of all
men, and at whatever cost or sacrifice ; Who offers to man
kind those deepest consolations which are sought from all others,
in vain. Nor is it otherwise with St. Luke and St. Mark. It
is indeed remarkable that our Lord's most absolute and peremp
tory claims1 to rule over the affections and wills of men are
recorded by the first and third, and not by the fourth Evan
gelist. These royal rights over the human soul can be justified
upon no plea of human relationships between teacher and
learner, between child and elder, between master and servant,
between friend and friend. If the title of Divinity is more
explicitly put forward in St. John, the rights which imply it are
insisted on in words recorded by the earlier Evangelists. The
synoptists represent our Lord, Who is the object of Christian
faith no less than the Founder of Christianity, as designing the
whole world for the field of His conquests m, and as claiming the
submission of every individual human soul. All are to be
brought to discipleship. Only then will the judgment come,
when the Gospel has been announced to the whole circle of the
nations". Christ, the Good and the Truth Incarnate, must
reign throughout all time °. He knows, according to the synop-
e St. Luke x. 18: iQe&povv rbv ^aravav us currpair^i' £k tov ovpavov
*-f<r<Wa. St. Matt. iv. 1-11, xii. 27-29, xiii. 38, 39.
• St. Matt, xxiii. 8. « Ibid. x. 37.
h Ibid. ver. 3a ; St. Luke xii. 8. 1 St. Matt. xi. 28.
k Ibid. ver. 29. 1 Ibid. x. 39 ; St. Luke xiv. 26.
m St. Matt, xxviii. 19 : lropcvBivres oZv naBiiTtviraTf iracm ret i6vi). St. Mark
xvi. 15; St. Luke xxiv. 47. Cf. St. Matt. xiii. 32, 38, 41, xxiv. 14.
D St. Matt. xxiv. 14 : kq\ KTipvxQfocrai rovro rb evayye\iov rijs fiaffikeUa
iv %A7] rrj otKovfifvri, fis fiaprvpiov iraffi ro7s $0f«Tt* Kcd r6re 9i£fi t6 tcAoj.
0 St. Luke xxii. 69 : a.irb rod vvv eorai o Tibs rov avdpwnov Kafyfievos tic
of^my t?)j tivv&neats rov 0€ov.
[LECT.
are especially prominent in the Synoplists. 253
tists no less than St. John, that He is a perfect and final Reve
lation of God. He is the Centre-point of the history and of the
hopes of man. None shall advance beyond Him : the preten
sion to surpass Him is but the symptom of disastrous error
and reaction P.
The Transfiguration is described by all the synoptists ; and it
represents our Lord in His true relation to the legal and pro
phetic dispensations, and as visibly invested for the time being
with a glory which was rightfully His. The Ascension secures
His permanent investiture with that glory ; and the Ascension
is described by St. Mark and St. Luke. The Resurrection is
recorded by the first three Evangelists as accurately as by the
fourth; and it was to the Resurrection that He Himself appealed
as being the sign by which men were to know His real claim
upon their homage. In the first three Gospels, all of Christ's
humiliations are consistently linked to the assertion of His power,
and to the consummation of His victory. He is buffeted, spat
upon, scourged, crucified, only to rise from the dead the third
day <i ; His Resurrection is the prelude to His ascent to heaven.
He leaves the world, yet He bequeaths the promise of His
Presence. He promises to be wherever two or three are gathered
in His Name r ; He institutes the Sacrament of His Body and
His Blood8; He declares that He will be among His people even
to the end of the world *.
4. But it is more particularly through our Lord's discourses
respecting the end of the world and the final judgment, as re
corded by the synoptists, that we may discern the matchless
dignity of His Person. It is reflected in the position which He
claims to fill with respect to the moral and material universe,
and in the absolute finality which He attributes to His religion.
The Lawgiver Who is above all other legislators, and Who
revises all other legislation, will also be the final Judge u. At
&yy4\ovs avrov, tea) trvWQovcriv tic rrjs 0afft\elas avrov ir&vra ra <ncaV5aAa
Kal roiis iroiovvras tV avop.tav, Kal fia.\ovtTlv avrobs els r)}v Kap.wov rov nvp6s.
Ibid. x. 32 ; St. Mark viii. 38. St. Matt. xxiv. 31 : aToo-rc\ii tous ayye'Aovs
avrov fiera adKmyyos (ptavrjs ntydKris, Kal iiriavvct^ovfft roits ticAticrobs avrov
ix rosy retro-dpuiv aveptav, air' aitpuv ovpavwv etas 6.Kpo>v avruv. Ibid. xxv.
34-46 ; St. Luke xii. 35, xvii. 30, 31.
x Martensen, ChristL Dogm. § I28>
[ LECT.
Summary of the Synoptical Christology. 255
concerning Christ, must have essentially the same features in
its resulting conception of Christ as those which belong to the
Christ of St. John y.' In other words, think over the miracles
wrought by Christ and narrated by the synoptists, one by one.
Think over the discourses spoken by Christ and recorded by the
synoptists, one by one. Look at the whole bearing and scope of
His Life, as the three first Evangelists describe It, from His
supernatural Birth to His disappearance beyond the clouds of
heaven. Mark well how pressing and tender, yet withal how
full of stern and majestic Self-assertion, are His words ! Con
sider how merciful and timely, yet also how expressive of imma
nent and unlimited power, are His miracles ! Put the three
representations of the Eoyal, the Human, and the Healing
Redeemer together, and deny, if it is possible, that Jesus is
Divine. If the Christ of the synoptists is not indeed an unreal
phantom, such as Docetism might have constructed, He is far
removed above the Ebionitic conception of a purely human
Saviour. If Christ's Pre-existence is only obscurely hinted at
in the first three Gospels, His relation to the world of spirits is
brought out in them even more clearly than in St. John by the
discourses which they contain on the subject of the Last Judg
ment. If St. John could be blotted out from the pages of the
New Testament, St. John's central doctrine would still live on
in the earlier Evangelists as implicitly contained within a history
otherwise inexplicable, if not as the illuminating truth of a
heavenly gnosis. There would still remain the picture of a Life
Which belongs indeed to human history, but Which the laws
that govern human history neither control nor can explain.
It would still be certain that One had lived on earth, wielding
miraculous powers, and claiming a moral and intellectual place
which belongs only to the Most Holy ; and if the problem pre
sented to faith might seem for a moment to be more intricate,
its final solution could not differ in substance from that which
meets us in the pages of the beloved disciple.
V. But what avails it, say you, to shew that St. John is con
sistent with himself, and that he is not really at variance with
the Evangelists who preceded him, if the doctrine which he
T Dorner, Person Christi, Einl. p. 89: 'Das synoptische Totalbild von
Christus dem johanneischen insofem vollkommen an die Seite setzen kaan,
als der durch Vermittlung der synoptischen Tradition gebildete Glaube
wesentlich ganz dieselben Ziige in seinem Christusbegriff haben musste, wie
sie der johanneische Christus hat.' For the preceding remarks, see Person
Christi, Einl. pp. 80-89.
256 Christ, thus God and Man, in One Person.
teaches, and which the Creed re-asserts, is itself incredible 1 You
object to this doctrine that it ' involves an invincible contradic
tion.' It represents Christ on the one hand as a Personal Being,
while on the other it asserts that two mutually self-excluding
Essences are really united in Him. How can He be personal,
you ask, if He be in very truth both God and Man ] If He is
thus God and Man, is He not, in point of fact, a 'double Being;'
and is not unity of being an indispensable condition of person
ality i Surely, you insist, this condition is forfeited by the very
terms of the doctrine. Christ either is not both God and Man,
or He is not a single Personality. To say that He is One Person
in Two Natures is to affirm the existence of a miracle which is
incredible, if for no other reason, simply on the score of its
unintelligibility z.
This is what may be said ; but let us consider, first of all,
whether to say this does not, however unintentionally, caricature
the doctrine of St. John and of the Catholic Creed. Does it not
seem as if both St. John and the Creed were at pains to make
it clear that the Person of Christ in His pre-existent glory, in
His state of humiliation and sorrow, and in the majesty of His
mediatorial kingdom, is continuously, unalterably One i Does
not the Nicene Creed, for instance, first name the Only-begotten
Son of God, and then go on to say how for us men and for our
salvation He was Himself made Man, and was crucified for us
under Pontius Pilate ? Does not St. John plainly refer to One
• Schenkel, Charakterbild Jesu, p. 2 : 'Es gehört vor Allem zum Begriffe
einer Person, dass sie im Kerne ihres Wesens eine Einheit bildet ; nur unter
dieser Voraussetzung lässt sie sich geschichtlich begreifen. Diese Einheit
wird durch die herkömmliche Lehre in der Person des Welterlösers aufge
hoben. Jesus Christus wird in der kirchlichen Glaubenslehre als ein Doppel-
Wesen dargestellt, als die persönliche Vereinigung zweier Wesenheiten, die
an sich nichts mit einander gemein haben, sich vielmehr schlechthin wider
sprechen und nur vermöge eines alle Begriffe übersteigenden Wunders in die
engste und unauflöslichste Verbindung mit einander gebracht worden sind.
Er ist demzufolge Mensch und Gott in einer und derselben Person. Die
kirchlichen Theologen haben grosse Anstrengungen gemacht, um die unauf
lösliche Verbindung von Gott und Mensch in einer Person als begreiflich
und möglich darzustellen ; sie haben sich aber zuletzt doch immer wieder zu
dem Geständniss genöthigt gesehen, dass die Sache unbegreiflich sei, und
dass ein undurchdringliches Geheimniss über dem Personleben Jesu Christi
schwebe. Allein eine solche Berufung auf Geheimnisse und Wunder ist, wo
es auf die Erklärung einer geschichtlichen Thatsache ankommt, für die
Wissenschaft ohne allen Werth ; sie offenbart uns die Unfähigkeit des theo
logischen Denkens, das in sich Widersprechende vorstellbar, das geschichtlich
Unbegreifliche denkbar zu machen.' Cf. Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 146;
Schleiermacher, Glaubenslehre, ii. § 96-98.
[ LECT.
Nestorians deny the unity of Christ's Person. 257
and the Same Agent in such verses as the following 1 ' All
things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything
made that was made8.' ' He riseth from supper, and laid aside
His garments; and took a towel, and girded Himself. After
that He poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the
disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He
was girded15.' If St. John or the Creed had proceeded to intro
duce a new subject to whom the circumstances of Christ's earthly
Life properly belonged, and who only maintained a mysterious,
even although it were an indissoluble connexion with the Eternal
Word in heaven, then the charge of making Christ a ' double
Being' would be warrantable. Nestorius was fairly liable -to
that charge. He practically denied that the Man Christ Jesus
was One Person with the Eternal Word. In order to heighten
the ethical import of the Human Life of Christ, Nestorianism
represents our Lord as an individual Man, Who, although He is
the temple and organ of the Deity to which He is united, yet
has a separate basis of personality in His Human Nature. The
individuality of the Son of Mary is thus treated as a distinct
thing from that of the Eternal Word ; and the Christ of Nesto
rianism is really a ' double Being,' or rather He is two distinct
persons, mysteriously joined in one0. But the Church has
formally condemned this error, and in so doing she was merely
throwing into the form of a doctrinal proposition the plain
import of the narrative of St. John's Gospel d.
Undoubtedly, you reply, the Church has not allowed her doc-
• St. John i. 3. b Ibid. xiii. 4, 5.
c Ap. Marium Merc. p. 54: ' Non Maria peperit Deum. Non peperit
creatura increabilem, sed peperit hominem Deitatis instrumentum. Divido
naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam.' Cf. Nestorii Ep. iii. ad Coelestin.
(Mahsi, torn. iv. 1197): rb irpoe\6etv rbv Seic A6yoi> 4k rrjs xPiaTm^Km>
7rap64vov irapa rrjs delas 4^iidx&Vv yfxupW*' rb 8e ytvvtiBrivai ®ebv 4£ av-njs,
o&Sajuou iSiSdx^v- And his ' famous ' saying, ' I will never own a child of
two months old to be God.' (Labbe, iii. 506.)
4 St. Leo in Epist. ad Leonem Aug. ed. Ballerino, 165 : ' Anathematizetur
ergo Nestorius, qui beatam Virginem non Dei, sed hominis tantummodo cre-
didit genitricem, ut aliam personam carnis faceret, aliam Deitatis ; nec unum
Christum in Verbo Dei et came sentiret, sed separatum atque sejunctum
alterum Filium Dei, alterum hominis prsedicaret.' See Confession of the
Easterns, accepted by St. Cyril, Labbe, iii. 1107. 'Op.oXoyovp.fv rbv Kvpiov
rifiutf'lT]trovv Xpio'rbv, rbv Tibv rov 0eoC, Qtbv r4\eiov koX &v8pwnov r4\eiov 4k
tyuxws KoytKrjs Kal atcfiaros, npb attZivwv /ihv 4k rov Harpbs yew7]64vra Kara
rrjv 0€(Jt7Jto, 4n' 4(rxdrwv Bt rwv rip-epuv rbv avrbv 4k Mapias Kara r)\v avdpw-
ihJttjto, &p.oovtriov rep Harp) Kara rijv ®*6rr}ra, unoovcriov r/piv Kara r}]v avdpu-
7r<$T7jTa* Svo yap tpvffiuv '4vwffis y4yove. Kara ravrrtv rty rijs afrvyxvrov
kvctiacas tvvoiav bp.oKoyovp.fv r)\v ayiav Tlapdivov &eor6Kovt 5ta rb rbv ®sbv
V] S
258 The ' Communicatio idiomatum'
trine to be stated in terms which would dissolve the Redeemer into
two distinct agents, and would so altogether forfeit the reality of
redemption e. But the question is whether the orthodox state-
\6yov <TapKwQ9ii>at koX ivavBpwiriitrai, koX Q outtjs ttjs tTvWfyfces evwffat eavrqi
rbv t£ avrrjs AtjtpfleVra va6v. Tas 5e *vayye\tKas irep\ tov Kvpiov <pwvas Xcr/xev
robs 9so\6yovs avUpas ras juev KowonotovvTas ws tip' whs irpotrwirov, ras St
Siaipovvras us 4vl 5i5o tpvatuv, Kal ras jutv Beoirpewets Kara rfyv ©edrryra rod
XpiffToO, ras 5< raireivas Kara r)]v av6panr6rrjra abrov irapaStSfWay. The
definition of Chalcedon is equally emphatic on the subject of the Hypostatic
Union. Routh, Scr. Op. ii. 78. Bright, Hist. Ch. p. 409. The title Theo-
tokos, assigned to the Blessed Virgin by eminent Fathers before the Nestorian
controversy (see Bright, ib. p. 302), and by the whole Church ever since the
Council of Ephesus, is essentially a tribute to Christ's personal glory. It is
in exact accordance with that well-known Scriptural utus loquendi, whereby
God is said to have ' purchased the Church with His own Blood' (Acts xx.
28, see Lect. VI. ; and compare 1 Cor. ii. 8), as conversely, ' the Son of Man,'
while yet on earth, is said to have been ' in heaven' (St. John iii. 13). This
' communicatio idiomatum,' KoivoTobjtru or avriSoais (St. John Dam. Orth.
Fid. iii. 4), as it is technically termed, is only intelligible on the principle
that whatever belongs to our Lord in either of His two spheres of Existence
belongs to Him as the One Christ, Who is, and is to be spoken of as, both
God and Man. In other words, the properties of both His Natures are the
properties of His Person. (Hooker, E. P. v. 53 ; St. Thorn. Summ. iii. 16, 4.)
In the same sense then as that in which St. Paul could attribute 'crucifixion,'
and ' shedding His Blood,' to ' God,' that is to say, to our Divine Saviour in
His Manhood, the Church could attribute to Him Birth of a human Mother.
The phrase 6cot6kos is implicitly sanctioned by the phrase at/xa @eov. It
presupposes the belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary, is our Lord and
God ; that ' the Son which is the Word ofthe Father, begotten from everlast
ing of the Father, very and eternal Gon, took Man's Nature upon Him in the
womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance,'art. 2. In sub-apostolic language,
b yap @ebs rjiucv 'lyffovs & Xptarbs lnvofpopiiQf) airb Maptas. Ign. ad Eph. 18.
e Jackson on the Creed, Works, vol. vii. p. 294 : ' That proper blood
wherewith God is said to have purchased the church, was the blood of the
Son of God, the second Person in Trinity, after a more peculiar manner than
it was the blood either of God the Father or of God the Holy Ghost. It was
the blood of God the Father or of God the Holy Ghost, as all other creatures
are, by common right of creation and preservation. It was the blood of
God the Son alone by personal union. If this Son of God, and High Priest
of our souls, had offered any other sacrifice for us than Himself, or the Man
hood thus personally united unto Him, His offering could not have been
satisfactory, because in all other things created, the Father and the Holy
Ghost had the same right or interest which the Son had, He could not have
offered anything to Them which were not as truly Theirs as His. Only the
Seed of Abraham, or Fruit of the Virgin's womb Which He assumed into the
Godhead, was by the assumption made so His own, as it was not Theirs, His
own by incommunicable property of personal union. By reason of this
incommunicable property in the woman's seed, the Son of God might truly
have said unto His Father, ' Lord, Thou hast purchased the church, yet
with My blood : ' but so could not the Man Christ Jesus say unto the Son
of God, ' Lord, Thou hast paid the ransom for the sins of the world, yet
with My blood, not with Thine own.'
[lect.
Christ's Manhood an instrument of His Deity. 259
ment be really successful in avoiding the error which it depre
cates. Certainly the Church does say that ' although Christ be
God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.' But is this
possible 1 How can Godhead and Manhood thus coalesce without
forfeiture of that unity which is a condition of personality 1
The answer to this question lies in the fact, upon which
St. John insists with such prominence, that our Lord's Godhead
is the seat of His Personality. The Son of Mary is not a distinct
human person mysteriously linked with the Divine Nature of
the Eternal Word f. The Person of the Son of Mary is divine
and eternal ; It is none other than the Person of the Word.
When He took upon Him to deliver man, the Eternal Word did
not abhor the Virgin's womb. He clothed Himself with man's
bodily and man's immaterial nature ; He united it to His Own
Divinity. He ' took man's Nature upon Him in the womb of
the Blessed Virgin, of her substance, so that two whole and per
fect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were
joined together in One Person, never to be divided, whereof is
One Christ?.' Thus to speak of Christ as a Man, at least with
out explanation, may lead to a serious misconception ; He is the
Man, or rather He is Man. Christ's Manhood is not of Itself an
individual being ; It is not a seat and centre of personality ; It
has no conceivable existence apart from the act whereby the
Eternal Word in becoming Incarnate called It into being and
. made It His Own h. It is a vesture which He has folded around
His Person ; It is an instrument through which He places Him
self in contact with men, and whereby He acts upon humanity '.
f St. Ful. de Fide ad Petr. c. 1 7 : ' Deus Verbum non accepit personam
hominis, sed naturam ; et in seternam personam divinitatis accepit tempora-
lem substantiam carnis.' St. Joh. Damasc. de Fid. Ortbod. iii. 11 : & @tbs
hiyos (TapKwQels ov tV ^v t^ fVSet 8etapovp.ivriv, ov yap irdffas ras vno(TTti<rfis
itvfoafltV aWa t$jv ii/ ar6p.y, airapxV r°v T\pxripov Qvp&puTos, oil Kttfi' eau-
t$]v {iiroffTaaav real &Top.ov xpVf^aTlffaffav irpdrcpov, nal oVtws for* avrov wpotr-
Ki)(p6ti(Tavt aA\* iv Tp avrov vtroOT&o-ei inrdpZaffav, avrri yap tj vir6(TTa(ris tov
®eou A6yov iyivero tt? vapid vitiarao'is. He states this in other terms (c. 9)
by saying that our Lord's Humanity had no subsistence of itself. It was not
tSioffvffTaros, nor was it strictly awviffTaros, but 4v avrr) rft tov 0eo9 Adyov
vtroo'Ta'ffei fntoo-raaa, 4vw6o-raros* He speaks too of Christ's vir6arao-is ovv-
fle-ros. Hooker, E. P. v. 52. 3. « Art. ii.
h St. Aug. e. Serm. Arian. c. 6 : ' Nec sic assumptus est [homo] ut priiis
crearetur, post assumeretur, sed ut in ipsa assumptione crearetur.' Newman's
Par. Sermons, vi. 68.
' Jackson on the Creed, Works, vol. vii. p. 289 : ' The Humanity of
Christ is such an instrument of the Divine Nature in His Person, as the
hand of man is to the person or party whose hand it is. And it is well
observed, whether by Aquinas himself or no I remember not, but by
V] S 2
260 Analogy from the composite nature of man.
He wears It in heaven, and thus robed in It He represents, He
impersonates, He pleads for the race of beings to which It
belongs. In saying that Christ ' took our nature upon Him,'
we imply that His Person existed before, and that the Manhood
which He assumed was Itself impersonal. Therefore He did not
make Himself a ' double Being ' by becoming incarnate. His
Manhood no more impaired the unity of His Person than each
human body, with its various organs and capacities, impairs the
unity of that personal principle which is the centre and pivot of
each separate human existence, and which has its seat within
the soul of each one of us.
' As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and
man is one Christ.' As the personality of man resides in the
soul, after death has severed soul and body, so the Person of
Christ had Its eternal seat in His Godhead before His Incarna
tion. Intimately as the ' I,' or personal principle within each
of us, is associated with every movement of the body, the ' I '
itself resides in the soul. The soul is that which is conscious,
which remembers, which wills, and which thus realizes person
ality. Certainly it is true that in our present state of existence
we have never as yet realized what personal existence is, apart
from the body. But the youngest of us will do this, ere many
years have passed. Meanwhile we know that, when divorced
from the personal principle which rules and inspires it, the body
is but a lump of lifeless clay. The body then does not superadd
a second personality to that which is in the soul. It supplies
the personal soul with an instrument ; it introduces it to a
sphere of action ; it is the obedient slave, the plastic ductile
form of the personal soul which tenants it. The hand is raised,
the voice is heard ; but these are acts of the selfsame personality
Viguerius, an accurate summist of Aquinas' sums, that albeit the intellectual
part of man be a spiritual substance, and separated from the matter or bodily
part, yet is the union betwixt the hand and intellectual part of man no less
firm, no less proper, than the union between the feet or other organical
parts of sensitive creatures, and their sensitive souls or mere physical forms.
For the intellectual part of man, whether it be the form of man truly, though
not merely physical, or rather his essence, not his form at all, doth use his
own hand not as the carpenter doth use his axe, that is, not as an external
or separated, but as his proper united instrument : nor is the union between
the hand as the instrument and intellective part as the artificer or commander
of it an union of matter and form, but an union personal, or at the least
such an union as resembles the hypostatical union between the Divine and
Human Nature of Christ much better than any material union wherein
philosophers or school-divines can make instance.' Cf. Viguerius, Institu-
tiones, c. 20. introd. p. 259, commenting on St. Thom. 3a. q. 2. a. I.
[lect.
Alleged danger of Apollinarian error. 261
as that which, in the invisible voiceless recesses of its immaterial
self, goes through intellectual acts of inference, or moral acts of
aversion or of love. In short, man is at once animal and spirit,
but his personal unity is not thereby impaired : and Jesus Christ
is not other than a Single Person, although He has . united the
Perfect Nature of Man to His Divine and Eternal Being.
Therefore, although He says 'I and the Father are One,' He
never says ' I and the Son ' or ' I and the Word are One.' For
He is the Word ; He is the Son. And His Human Life is not
a distinct person, but the robe which is folded around His
Eternal Personality k.
But if the illustration of the Creed is thus suggestive of the
unity of Christ's Person, is it, you may fairly ask, altogether in
harmony with the Scriptural and Catholic doctrine of His
Perfect Manhood ? If Christ's Humanity stands to His God
head in the relation of the body of a man to his soul, does not
this imply that Christ has no human Soul1, or at any rate no
distinct human Will t You remind me that ' the truth of our
Lord's Human Will is essential to the integrity of His Manhood,
to the reality of His Incarnation, to the completeness of His
redemptive work. It is plainly asserted by Scripture ; and the
error which denies It has been condemned by the Church. If
Nestorius errs on one side, Apollinaris, Eutyches, and finally the
Monothelites, warn us how easily we may err on the other.
Chrisi has a Human Will as being Perfect Man, no less than He
has a Divine Will as being Perfect God. But this is not sug
gested by the analogy of the union of body and soul in man.
And if there are two Wills in Christ, must there not also be two
Persons t and may not the Sufferer Who kneels in Gethsemane
be another than the Word by Whom all things were made V
Certainly, the illustration of the Creed cannot be pressed
closely without risk of serious error. An illustration is gene
rally used to indicate correspondence in a single particular ; and
it will not bear to be erected into an absolute and consistent
k On the objection that the illustration in the Athanasian Creed favours
Nestorianism, cf. St. Tho. 3». 2. 5.
1 This preliminary form of the objection is thus noticed by the Master of
the Sentences, Petr. Lomb. 1. iii. d. 5 (858). 'Non accepit Verbum Dei
personam hominis, sed naturam. E : A quibusdam opponitur, quod persona
assumit personam. Persona enim est substantia rationalis individual naturse,
hoc autem est anima. Ergo si animam assumsit, et personam. Quod ideo
non sequitur, quia anima non est persona, quando alii rei unita est perso-
naliter, sed quando per se est. Ilia autem anima (our Lord's) nunquam fuit,
quia esset alii rei conjuncta.'
262 Reality of otcr Lord's Human Will consistent
parallel, supposed to be in all respects analogous to that with
which it has a single point of correspondence. But the Creed
protects itself elsewhere against any such misuse of this par
ticular illustration. The Creed says that as body and soul meet
in a single man, so do Perfect Godhead and Perfect Manhood
meet in one Christ. The Perfect Manhood of Christ, not His
Body merely but His Soul, and therefore His Human Will, is
part of the One Christ. Unless in His condescending love our
Eternal Lord had thus taken upon Him our fallen nature in its
integrity, that is to say, a Human Soul as well as a Human
Body, a Human Will as an integral element of the Human Soul,
mankind would not have been really represented on the cross or
before the throne. We should not have been truly redeemed or
sanctified by a real union with the Most Holy.
Yet in taking upon Him a Human Will, the Eternal Word
did not assume a second principle of action which was de
structive of the real unity of His Person. Within the precincts
of a single human soul may we not observe two principles of
volition, this higher and that lower, this animated almost en
tirely by reason, that as exclusively by passion ? St Paul has
described the moral dualism within a single will which is cha
racteristic of the first stage of the regenerate life, in a wonderful
passage of his Epistle to the Komans™. The real self is loyal to
God ; yet the Christian sees within him a second self, warring
against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to
that which his central being, in its loyalty to God, energetically
rejects". Yet in this great conflict between the old and the new
self of the regenerate man, there is, we know, no real schism of
an indivisible person, although for the moment antagonist ele
ments within the soul are so engaged as to look like separate
hostile agencies. The man's lower nature is not a distinct
person, yet it has what is almost a distinct will, and what is
thus a shadow of the Created Will which Christ assumed along
with His Human Nature. Of course in the Incarnate Christ,
the Human Will, although a proper principle of action, was not,
m Rom. vii. 14-25. Origen, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret understand
this passage of the state of man before regeneration. St. Augustine was of
this mind in his earlier theological life (Confess, vii. 21 ; Prop. 45 in Ep. ad
Rom., quoted by Meyer, Rbmer. p. 246), but his struggle with the Pelagian
heresy led him to understand the passage of the regenerate (Retraetat. i. 23,
ii. I ; contr. duas Ep. Pelag. i. 10 ; contr. Faust, xv. 8). This judgment was
accepted by the great divines of the middle ages, St. Anselm and Aquinas,
and generally by the moderns ; although of late there have been some earnest
efforts to revive the Greek interpretation. n Rom. vii. 17, 22, 23.
[lect.
with the Impersonality of His Manhood. 263
could not be, in other than the most absolute harmony with the
Will of God0. Christ's sinlessness is the historical expression of
this harmony. The Human Will of Christ corresponded to the
Eternal Will with unvarying accuracy ; because in point of fact
God, Incarnate in Christ, willed each volition of Christ's Human
Will. Christ's Human Will then had a distinct existence, yet
Its free volitions were but the earthly echoes of the Will of the
AU-holyP. At the Temptation It was confronted with the per
sonal principle of evil ; but the Tempter without was seconded
by no pulse of sympathy within. The Human Will of Christ
was incapable of willing evil. In Gethsemane It was thrown
forward into strong relief as Jesus bent to accept the chalice of
suffering from which His Human sensitiveness could not but
shrink. But from the first It was controlled by the Divine Will
to which It is indissolubly united ; just as, if we may use the
comparison, in a holy man, passion and impulse are brought
entirely under the empire of reason and conscience 1. As God
and Man, our Lord has two Wills ; but the Divine Will origi
nates and rules His Action ; the Human Will is but the docile
servant of that Will of God which has its seat in Christ's Divine
and Eternal Person1-. Here indeed we touch upon the line at
which revealed truth shades off into inaccessible mystery. We
may not seek to penetrate the secrets of that marvellous 6(avbpi<f)
evepyeia : but at least we know that each Nature of Christ is
perfect, and that the Person which unites them is One and in
dissoluble9.
0 This was the ground taken in the Sixth General Council, a.d. 680,
when the language of Chalcedon was adapted to meet the error of the Mono-
thelites. Aijo <pviTiKa,s fleA^trets fjroi Oe^fiara 4v abr$ koX Svo ipvaiizhs
ivcpyeias a5ia(p€T(ws, aTpeirrftjr, a.^pi<nus, aGiryxvTvs, Kara r\\v twv ayicov
iraTcpaiv SiStHTKaAlav K7]pvTTop.zv, Kai 5vo tpvaiKa OeX^fxara ovu irfftvaVTia, flij
yevono, Kadhs oi aae&eis ityt\aa.v aiperiKol, aAA' e-nd^ivov t2> avdptHmtvoi' ainov
<?e'\7]/ua, Kal ju$) avrtirlitToy, 4) avrinaXaiov p.a\\ov p.ev oZv teal viroTaair6fifvov
t$ Oela avrov Kal mvoBevei OeMjMaTi. Mansi, torn. xi. p. 637. Routh, Scr.
Op. ii. 236. Hooker, E. P. v. 48. 9.
p ' In ancient language, a twofold voluntas is quite compatible with a single
volitio.' Klee Dogmengesch. ii. 4. 6.
1 St. Maximus illustrates the two harmonious operations of the Two Wills
in Christ, by the physical image of a heated sword which both cuts and burns.
Disp. cont. Pyrrh. apud Klee ubi sup.
r St. Ambros. de Fide, v. 6 : ' Didicisti, quod omnia sibi Ipsi subjicere possit
secundum operationem utique Deitatis ; disce nunc quod secundum carnem
omnia subjecta accipiat.'
" St. Leo, Ep. ad Flavianum, c. 4 : ' Qui verus est Deus, idem verus est
Homo ; et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, dum invicem sunt et hu-
militas hominis et altitudo deitatis. Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius
V]
264 Mystery, no reasonable bar to faith.
For the illustration of the Creed might at least remind us
that we carry about with us the mystery of a composite nature,
which should lead a thoughtful man to pause before pressing
such objections as are urged by modern scepticism against the
truth of the Incarnation. The Christ Who is revealed in the
Gospels and Who is worshipped by the Church, is rejected as
being 'an unintelligible wonder!' True, He is, as well in His
condescension as in His greatness, utterly beyond the scope of
our finite comprehensions. ' Salva1 proprietate utriusque Naturae,
et in unam coeunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas,
a virtute infirmitas, ab aeternitate mortalitasV We do not pro
fess to solve the mystery of that Union between the Almighty,
Omniscient, Omnipresent Being, and a Human Life, with its
bounded powers, its limited knowledge, its restricted sphere.
We only know that in Christ, the finite and the Infinite are thus
united. But we can understand this mysterious union at least
as well as we can understand the union of such an organism as
the human body to a spiritual immaterial principle like the
human soul. How does spirit thus league itself with matter ?
Where and what is the life-principle of the body ? Where is the
exact frontier-line between sense and consciousness, between
brain and thought, between the act of will and the movement of
muscle? Is human nature then so utterly commonplace, and
have its secrets been so entirely unravelled by contemporary
science, as entitle us to demand of the Almighty God that
when He reveals Himself to us He shall disrobe Himself of
mystery 1 If we reject His Self-revelation in the Person of
Jesus Christ on the ground of our inability to understand the
difficulties, great and undeniable, although not greater than we
might have anticipated, which do in fact surround it ; are we
also prepared to conclude that, because we cannot explain how a
spiritual principle like the soul can be robed in and act through
a material body, we will therefore close our eyes to" the argu
ments which certify us that the soul is an immaterial essence,
and take refuge from this oppressive sense of mystery in some
doctrine of consistent materialism ?
communione quod proprium est ; Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et
came exsequer.te quod carnia est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, alteram
succumbit injuriis.' St. Joh. Damasc. iii. 19 : 0eov IvavdpwTnjffavros, /cat tj
avBpurrrfori avrov 4v*pytia Qtla r\v, ¥\yovv TefoaytfV^, Kal ovk &fju>tpos rrjs (May
ai/rov ivepyetas' /cat tj 0eta avrov it/epytta ovk &fxoipos t?Js avdpa>irivT]S avrov
jvepyelas' aW* iKarcpa ffvv rij erepa dewpovutvrt. He urges, here and in
iii. 15, that Two Natures imply Two Energies co-operating, for no nature is
avtvtpyriTos. See St. Tho. 3a. 19. 1. * St. Leo, Ep. ad Flavianum, c. 3.
[ LECT.
Incarnation, how related to Creation. 265
Certainly St. John's doctrine of the Divinity of the Word
Incarnate cannot be reasonably objected to on the score of its
mysteriousness by those who allow themselves to face their real
ignorance of the mysteries of our human nature. Nor does that (
doctrine involve a necessary internal self-contradiction on such a
ground as that ' the Word by Whom all things were made, and
Who sustains all things, cannot become His Own creature.' Un
doubtedly the Word Incarnate does not cease to be the Word ;
but He can and does assume a Nature which He has created,
and in which He dwells, that in it He may manifest Himself.
Between the processes of Creation and Incarnation there is no
necessary contradiction in Divine revelation, such as is presumed
to exist by certain Pantheistic thinkers. He who becomes In
carnate creates the form in which He manifests Himself simul
taneously with the act of His Self-manifestation. Doubtless
when we say that God creates, we imply that He gives an exist
ence to something other than Himself. On the other hand, it is
certain that He does in a real sense Himself exist in each created
object, not as being one with it, but as upholding it in being. He
is in every such object the constitutive, sustaining, binding force
which perpetuates its being. Thus in varying degrees the
creatures are temples and organs of the indwelling Presence of
the Creator, although in His Essence He is infinitely removed
from them. If this is true of the irrational and, in a lower
measure, even of the inanimate creatures, much more is it true
of the family of man, and of each member of that family. In
vast inorganic masses God discovers Himself as the supreme,
creative, sustaining Force. In the graduated orders of vital
power which range throughout the animal and vegetable worlds,
God unveils His activity as the Fountain of all life. In man, a
creature exercising conscious reflective thought and free self-
determining will, God proclaims Himself a free Intelligent
Agent. Man indeed may, if he will, reveal much more than
this of the beauty of God. Man may shed abroad, by the free
movement of his will, rays of God's moral glory, of love, of
mercy, of purity, of justice. Whether a man will thus declare
the glory of his Maker depends not upon the necessary con
stitution of his nature, but upon the free co-operation of his will
with the designs of God. God however is obviously able to
create a Being who will reveal Him perfectly and of necessity,
as expressing His perfect image and likeness before His creatures.
All nature points to such a Being as its climax and consumma
tion. And such a Being is the Archetypal Manhood, assumed
v]
266 Origin of belief in the Godhead of Christ.
by the Eternal Word. It is the climax of God's creation ; It is
the climax also of God's Self-revelation. At this point God's
creative activity becomes entirely one with His Self-revealing
activity. The Sacred Manhood is a creature, yet It is indis-
solubly united to the Eternal Word. It differs from every other
created being, in that God personally tenants It. So far then
are Incarnation and Creation from being antagonistic concep
tions of the activity of God, that the absolutely Perfect Creature
only exists as a perfect reflection of the Divine glory. In the
Incarnation, God creates only to reveal, and He reveals perfectly
by That which He creates. ' The Word was made flesh and
dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory11.'
VI. But if belief in our Lord's Divinity, as taught by St.
John, cannot be reasonably objected to on such grounds as have
been noticed, can it be destroyed by a natural explanation of its
upgrowth and formation % Here, undoubtedly, we touch upon a
suspicion which underlies much of the current scepticism of the
clay ; and with a few words on this momentous topic we may
conclude the present lecture.
Those who reject the doctrine that Christ is God are con
fronted by the consideration that, after the lapse of eighteen
centuries since His appearance on this earth, He is believed in
and worshipped as God by a Christendom which embraces the
most civilized portion of the human family. The question arises
how to account for this fact. There is no difficulty at all in
accounting for it if we suppose Him to be, and to have pro
claimed Himself to be, a Divine Person. But if we hold that,
as a matter of history, He believed Himself to be a mere man,
how are we to explain the world-wide upgrowth of so extra
ordinary a belief about Him, as is this belief in His Divinity t
Scepticism may fold its arms and may smile at what it deems
the intrinsic absurdity of the dogma believed in ; but it cannot
ignore the existing prevalence of the belief which accepts the
dogma. The belief is a phenomenon which at least challenges
attention. How has that belief been spread ? How is it that
for eighteen hundred years, and at this hour, a conviction of the
truth of the Godhead of Jesus dominates over the world of
Christian thought 1 Here, if scepticism would save its intellec
tual credit, it must cease from the perpetual reiteration of doubts
and negations, unrelieved by any frank assertions or admissions
of positive truth. It must make a venture ; it must commit
itself to the responsibilities of a positive position, however inexact
° On this subject, see Martensen, Christl. Dogmat. § 132.
[ LECT.
Theory of 1 Deification by enthusiasm! 267
and shadowy ; it must hazard an hypothesis and be prepared to
defend it.
Accordingly the theory which proposes to explain the belief
of Christendom in the Godhead of Christ maintains that Christ
was 'deified' by the enthusiasm of His first disciples. We are
told that ' man instinctively creates a creed that shall meet the
wants and aspirations of his understanding and of his heart v.'
The teaching of Christ created in His first followers a passionate
devotion to His Person, and a desire for unreserved submission to
His dictatorship. Not that Christ's Divinity was decreed Him by
any formal act of public honour ; it was the spontaneous and
irregular tribute of a passionate enthusiasm. Could any expres
sion of reverence seem exaggerated to an admiration and a love
which knew no bounds] Could any intellectual price be too
high to pay for the advantage of placing the authority of the
Greatest of teachers upon that one basis of authority which is
beyond assault t Do not love and reverence, centring upon a
friend, upon a memory, with eager intensity, turn a somewhat
impatient ear to the cautious protestations of the critical reason,
when any such voice can make itself heard 1 Do they not pass
by imperceptible degrees into adoration 1 Does not adoration
take for granted the Divinity of the object which it has learned
imperceptibly and unreflectingly to adore ? The enthusiasm
created by Jesus Christ in those around Him, thus comes to be
credited with the invention and propagation of the belief in His
Divinity. ' So mighty was the enthusiasm, that nothing short
of that stupendous belief would satisfy it. The heart of
Christendom gave law to its understanding. Christians wished
Christ to be God, and they forthwith thought that they had
sufficient reasons for believing in His Godhead. The feeling of
a society of affectionate friends found its way in process of time
into the world of speculation. It fell into the hands of the dia
lecticians, and into the hands of the metaphysicians ; it was
analysed, it was defined, it was coloured by contact with foreign
speculations ; it was enlarged by the accretion of new intellectual
material. At length Fathers and Councils had finished their
graceless and pedantic task, and that which had at first been the
fresh sentiment of simple and loving hearts was duly hardened
and rounded off into a solid block of repulsive dogma.'
Now St. John's writings are a standing difficulty in the way
of this enterprising hypothesis. We have seen that the fourth
Gospel must be recognised as St. John's, unless, to use the words
* Feuerbach, Geist. d. Christenth. Einl.
7]
268 St. John's writings fatal to the theory.
of Evvald, ' we are prepared knowingly to receive falsehood and
to reject truth.' But we have also seen that in the fourth
Gospel, Jesus Christ is proclaimed to be God by the whole drift
of the argument, and in terms as explicit as those of the Nicene
Creed. We have not then to deal with any supposed process of
deification, whereby the Person of Jesus was ' transfigured ' in
the apprehension of sub-apostolic, or post-apostolic Christendom.
It is St. John who proclaims that Jesus is the Word Incarnate,
and that the Word is God. How can we account for St. John's
conduct in representing Him as God, if He was in truth only
man % It will not avail to argue that St. John wrote his Gospel
in his old age, and that the memories of his youthful companion
ship with Jesus had been coloured, heightened, transformed,
idealized, by the meditative enthusiasm of more than half a
century. It will not avail to say that the reverence of the
beloved disciple for his ascended Master was fatal to the accuracy
of the portrait which he drew of Him. For what is this but to
misapprehend the very fundamental nature of reverence ? Truth
is the basis, as it is the object of reverence, not less than of
every other virtue. Reverence prostrates herself before a great
ness the reality of which is obvious to her ; but she would cease
to be reverence if she could exaggerate the greatness which pro
vokes her homage, not less surely than if she could depreciate
or deny it. The sentiment which, in contemplating its object,
abandons the guidance of fact for that of imagination, is disloyal
to that honesty of purpose which is of the essence of reverence ;
and it is certain at last to subserve the purposes of the scorner
and the spoiler. St. John insists that he teaches the Church
only that which he has seen and heard. Even a slight swerving
from truth must be painful to genuine reverence ; but what
shall we say of an exaggeration so gigantic, if an exaggeration
it be, as that which transforms a human friend into the Almighty
and Everlasting God ? If Jesus Christ is not God, how is it
that the most intimate of His earthly friends, came to believe
and to teach that He really is God t
Place yourselves, my brethren, fairly face to face with this
difficulty ; imagine yourselves, for the moment, in the position
of St. John. Think of any whom you have loved and revered,
beyond measure, as it has seemed, in past years. He has
gone ; but you cling to him more earnestly in thought and
affection than while he was here. You treasure his words, you
revisit his haunts, you delight in the company of his friends, you
represent to yourself his wonted turns of thought and phrase,
[ LECT.
Could St. John have 'deified' a human friend? 269
you con over his handwriting, you fondle his likeness. These
things are for you precious and sacred. Even now, there are
times when the tones of that welcome voice seem to fall with
living power upon your strained ear. Even now, the outline
of that countenance, upon which the grave has closed, flits, as
if capriciously, before your eye of sense. The air around you
yields it perchance to your intent gaze, radiant with a higher
beauty than it wore of old. Others, you feel, may be forgotten
as memory grows weak, and the passing years bring with them
the quick succession of new fields and objects of interest, press
ing importunately upon the heart and thoughts. But one such
memory as I have glanced at, fades not at the bidding of time.
It cannot fade ; it has become a part of the mind which clings
to it. Some who are here may have known those whom they
thus remember ; a few of us assuredly have known such. But can
we conceive it possible that, after any lapse of time, we should
ever express our reverence and love for the unearthly goodness,
the moral strength, the tenderness of heart, the fearlessness, the
justice, the unselfishness of our friend, by saying that he was
not an ordinary human being, but a superhuman person ] Can
we imagine ourselves incorporating our recollections about him
with some current theosophic doctrine elevating him to the rank
of a Divine hypostasis ? While he lies in his silent grave, can
we picture ourselves describing him as the very absolute Light
and Life, as the Incarnate Thought of the Most High, as stand
ing in a relationship altogether unique to the Eternal and Self-
existent Being, nay, as being literally God ? To say that ' St. John
lived in a different intellectual atmosphere from our own,' does
not meet the difficulty. If Jesus was merely human, St. John's
statements about Him are among the most preposterous fictions
which have imposed upon the world. They were advanced with
a full knowledge of all that they involved. St. John was at least
as profoundly convinced as we are of the truth of the unity of
the Supreme Being. St. John was at least as alive as we can
be to the infinite interval which parts the highest of creatures
from the Great Creator. If we are not naturally lured on by
some irresistible fascination, by the poetry or by the credulity of
our advancing years, to believe in the Godhead of the best man
whom we have ever known, neither was St. John. If Jesus had
been merely human, St. John would have felt what we feel about
a loved and revered friend whom we have lost. In proportion
to our belief in our friend's goodness, in proportion to our loving
reverence for his character, is the strength of our conviction that
v]
270 Mankind not prone to 'deify' human virtue.
we could not now do him a more cruel injury than by entwining
a blasphemous fable, such as the ascription of Divinity would
be, around the simple story of his merely human life. This
' deification of Jesus by the enthusiasm ' of St. John would have
been consistent neither with St. John's reverence for God, nor
with his real loyalty to a merely human friend and teacher.
St. John worshipped the 'jealous' God of Israel; and he has
recorded the warning which he himself received against wor
shipping the angel of the Apocalypse x. If Christ had not really
been Divine, the real beauty of His Human Character would have
been disfigured by any association with such legendary exagge
ration, and Christianity would assuredly have perished within the
limits of the first century.
The theory that Jesus was deified by enthusiasm assumes the
existence of a general disposition in mankind which is unwar
ranted by experience. Generally speaking men are not eager to
believe in the exalted virtue, much less in the superhuman origin
or dignity, of their fellow-men. And to do them justice, the
writers who maintain that Jesus was invested with Divine
honours by popular fervour, illustrate the weakness of their own
principle very conspicuously. While they assert that nothing
was more easy and obvious for the disciple of the apostolic age
than to believe in the Divinity of his Master, they themselves
reject that truth with the greatest possible obstinacy and deter
mination ; well -attested though it be, now as then, by historical
miracles and by overwhelming moral considerations ; but also
proclaimed now, as it was not then, by the faith of eighteen cen
turies, and by the suffrages of all that is purest and truest in our
existing civilization.
But, it is suggested that the apostolic narrative itself bears
out the doctrine that Jesus was deified through enthusiasm by
its account of the functions which are ascribed, especially in
St. John's Gospel, to the Comforter. Was not the Comforter
sent to testify of Jesus 1 Is it not said, ' He shall glorify Me % '
Does not this language look like the later endeavour of a
religious phrenzy, to account for exaggerations of which it is
conscious, by a bold claim to supernatural illumination ?
Now this suggestion implies that the last Discourse of our
Lord is in reality a forgery, which can no more claim to repre
sent His real thought than the political speeches in Thucydides
can be seriously supposed to express the minds of the speakers
to whom they are severally attributed. Or, at the least, it im-
1 Rev. xxii. 9.
[ LECT.
Illuminative Office of the Holy Ghost. 271
plies that a purely human feeling is here clothed by language
ascribed to our Lord Himself with the attributes of a Divine
Person. Of course, if St. John was capable of deliberately
attributing to his Master that which He did not say, he was
equally capable of attributing to Him actions which He did not
do ; and we are driven to imagine that the closest friend of
Jesus was believed by apostolical Christendom to be writing a
history, when in truth he was only composing a biographical
novel. But, as Rousseau has observed in words which have
been already quoted, the original inventor of the Gospel history
would have been as miraculous a being as its historical Subject.
And the moral fascination which the last discourse possesses for
every pure and true soul at this hour, combines with the testi
mony of the Church to assure us that it could have been spoken
by no merely human lips, and that it is beyond the inventive
scope of even the highest human genius. Those three chapters
which M. Renan pronounces to be full of ' the dryness of meta
physics and the darkness of abstract dogmas' have been, as a
matter of fact, watered by the tears of all the purest love and
deepest sorrow of Christian humanity for eighteen centuries.
Never is the New Testament more able to dispense with external
evidence than in those matchless words ; nowhere more than
here is it sensibly divine.
Undoubtedly it is a fact that in these chapters our Lord does
promise to His apostles the supernatural aid of the Holy Spirit.
It is true that the Spirit was to testify of Christ y and to glorify
Christ z, and to guide the disciples into all a truth. But how ?
' He shall take of Mine and shall shew it unto yout>;' 'He shall
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance
whatsoever I have said unto you0.' The Holy Spirit was to
bring the words and works and character of Jesus before the
illuminated intelligence of the Apostles. The school of the
Spirit was to be the school of reflection. But it was not to be
the school of legendary invention. Acts, which, at the time of
their being witnessed, might have appeared trivial or common
place, would be seen, under the guidance of the Spirit, to have
had a deeper interest. Words, to which a transient or local
1 St. John xv. 26 : imtros fiaprvpfint «pl i/jiov.
' Ibid. zvi. 14 : (kuvos ifjit $o(dati.
■ Ibid. ver. 1 3 : SUtiyfiGei vfias eis iratrav tV &Jl8etav.
* Ibid. vers. 14, 15 : ix toS i/iov not ivayyeXti ifui>.
0 Ibid. xiv. 26 : ^Keivos ifias 5t5(££et 7ra^Ta, nal inro^vTja'ti vfius irdyra &
V]
272 Guidance of the Spirit and natural observation.
value had been assigned at first, would now be felt to invite
a world-wide and eternal meaning. 'These things understood
not His disciples at the first,' is true of much else besides the
entry into Jerusalem d. Moral, spiritual, physical powers which,
though unexplained, could never have passed for the product of
purely human activity, would in time be referred by the Invisible
Teacher to their true source ; they would be regarded with awe
as the very rays of Deity.
Thus the work of the Spirit would but complete, systematize,
digest the results of previous natural observation. Certainly it
was always impossible that any man could 'say that Jesus is
the Lord but by the Holy Ghost e.' The inward teaching of the
Holy Ghost alone could make the Godhead of Jesus a certainty
of faith as well as a conclusion of the intellect. But the intel
lectual conditions of belief were at first inseparable from natural
contact with the living Human Form of Jesus during the years
of His earthly life. Our Lord implies this in saying ' Ye also
shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the
beginning.' The Apostles lived with One Who combined an
exercise of the highest miraculous powers with a faultless human
character, and Who asserted Himself, by implication and ex
pressly, to be personally God. The Spirit strengthened and
formalized that earlier and more vague belief which was created
by His language ; but it was His language which had fallen on
the natural ears of the Apostles, and which was the germinal
principle of their riper faith in His Divinity.
The unbelief of our day is naturally anxious to evade the
startling fact that the most intimate of the companions of Jesua
is also the most strenuous assertor of His Godhead. There is a
proverb to the effect that no man's life should be written by his
private servant. That proverb expresses the general conviction
of mankind that, as a rule, like some mountain scenery or ruined
castles, moral greatness in men is more picturesque when it is
viewed from a distance. The proverb bids you not to scrutinize
even a good man too narrowly, lest perchance you should dis
cover flaws in his character which will somewhat rudely shake
your conviction of his goodness. It is hinted that some un
obtrusive weaknesses which escape public observation will be
obvious to a man's everyday companion, and will be fatal to the
higher estimate which, but for such close scrutiny, might have
been formed respecting him. But in the case of Jesus Christ
4 St. John xii. 14-16.
e 1 Cor. xii. 3 : ouSelj SiivoTo: fltftiv Kvpwv 'li\aoZv, ei /uJ) iv Tlvtina-ri 'Ay!u>.
[ LECT.
Significance ofSt.Johris intimacy with ourLord. 273
the moral of this cynical proverb is altogether at fault. Jesus
Christ chooses one disciple to be the privileged sharer of a
nearer intimacy than any other. The son of Zebedee lies upon
His bosom at supper ; he is ' the disciple whom Jesus loved.'
Along with St. Peter and St. James, this disciple is taken to the
holy mount, that he may witness the glory of his Transfigured
Lord. He enters the empty tomb on the morning of the Resur
rection. He is in the upper chamber when the risen Jesus
blessed the ten and the eleven. He is on the mount of the
Ascension when the Conqueror moves up visibly into heaven.
But he also is summoned to the garden where Jesus kneels in
agony beneath the olive-trees ; and alone of the twelve he faces
the fierce multitude on the road to Calvary, and stands with
Mary beneath the cross, and sees Jesus die. He sees more of
the Divine Master than any other, more of His glory, more too
of His humiliation. His witness is proportioned to his nearer
and closer observation. Whether he is writing Epistles of en
couragement and warning, or narrating heavenly visions touch
ing the future of the Church, or recording the experiences of
those years when he enjoyed that intimate, unmatched com
panionship,—St. John, beyond any other of the sacred writers,
is the persistent herald and teacher of our Lord's Divinity.
How and by what successive steps it was that the full truth
embodied in his Gospel respecting the Person of his Lord made
its way into and mastered the soul of the beloved disciple, who
indeed shall presume to say] Who of us can determine the
exact and varied observations whereby we learn to measure and
to revere the component elements even of a great human cha
racter? The absorbing interest of such a process is generally
fatal to an accurate analysis of its stages. We penetrate deeper
and deeper, we mount higher and higher, as we follow the
complex system of motives, capacities, dispositions, which, one
after another, open upon us. We cannot, on looking back, say
when this or that feature became distinctly clear to us. We
know not now by what additions and developments the general
impression which we have received took its shape and outline.
St. John would doubtless have learnt portions of the mighty
truth from definite statements and at specified times. The real
sense of prophecy f, the explicit confessions of disciples?, the
f St. John xii. 41 : toSto ctvev 'Haatas, 8tc elfie tV B6£av abrov, <ca!
4\d\ij(Te Trepl ai/TOv. Isa. vi. 9.
s St. John i. 49. After our Lord's words implying His omnipresence,
Nathanael says, 'Pa&S!, av e? 6 Tibs tov 0eov.
V} '. T
274 The most intimate companionship with yesus
assertions by which our Lord replied to the malice or to the
ignorance of His opponents \ were doubtless distinct elements
of the Apostle's training in the school of truth. St. John must
have learned something of Christ's Divine power when, at His
word, the putrid corpse of Lazarus, bound with its grave-clothes,
moved forward into air and life. St. John must have learned
yet more of his Master's condescension when, girded with a
towel, Jesus bent Himself to the earth, that He might wash the
feet of the traitor Judas. Each miracle, each discourse supplied
a distinct ray of light ; but the total impression must have been
formed, strengthened, deepened, by the incidents of daily inter
course, by the effects of hourly, momentary observation. For
every human soul, encased in its earthly prison-house, seeks and
finds publicity through countless outlets. The immaterial spirit
traces its history with an almost invisible delicacy upon the
coarse hard matter which is its servant and its organ. The un
conscious, involuntary movements of manner and countenance,
the unstudied phrases of daily or of casual conversation, the
emphasis of silence not less than the emphasis of speech, help in
various ways to complete that self-revelation which every indi
vidual character makes to all around, and which is studied by
all in each. Not otherwise did the Incarnate Word reveal Him
self to the purest and keenest love which He found and chose
from among the sons of men. One flaw or fault of temper, one
symptom of moral impotence, or of moral perversion, one hasty
word, one ill-considered act, would have shattered the ideal for
ever. But, in fact, to St. John the Life of Jesus was as the light
of heaven ; it was as one constant unfailing outflow of beauty,
ever varying its illuminating powers as it falls upon the leaves of
the forest oak or upon the countless ripples of the ocean. In the
eyes of St. John the Eternal Person of Jesus shone forth through
His Humanity with translucent splendour, and wove and folded
around itself, as the days and weeks passed on, a moral history
of faultless grandeur. It was not the disciple who idealized the
Master ; it was the Master Who revealed Himself in His majestic
glory to the illumined eye and to the entranced touch of the
disciple. No treachery of memory, no ardour of temperament,
no sustained reflectiveness of soul, could have compassed the
transformation of a human friend into the Almighty and Ever
lasting Being. Nor was there room for serious error of judg
ment after a companionship so intimate, so heart-searching, so
Ta
LECTUEE VI.
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived
the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the
right hands of fellowship ; that we should go unto the heathen, and they
unto the circumcision.—Gal. ii. 9.
d St. Paul associates himself with the other apostles as bearing the stress
of a common confessorship for Christ (2 Cor. xii. 12). The apostles are,
together with the prophets, the foundations of the Church (Eph. ji. 20).
The apostles are first in order (Eph. iv. 11). Although the grace of God in
himself had laboured more abundantly than all the apostles, St. Paul terms
himself the least of the apostolic college (1 Cor. xv. 9). The equality of the
Gentile believers in Christ with the Jewish believers was a truth made known
to St. Paul by special revelation, and he called it his Gospel ; but it implied
no properly doctrinal difference between himself and the apostles of the
circumcision. The harmonious action of the apostles as a united spiritual
corporation is implied in such passages as 2 Pet. hi. 2, St. Jude 17 ; and neither
of these passages affords ground for Baur's inference respecting the post-
apostolic age of the writer. In 2 St. Pet. iii. 15, 16, St. Peter distinguishes
between the real mind of ' our beloved brother Paul ' as being in perfect
agreement with his own, and the abuse which had been made by teachers of
error of certain difficult truths put forward in the Pauline Epistles : ivuv6i)ti
viva, h ol apa8us Kal aar^piKTOi oipf&Kovffiv us Kal ras \omas ypaipas, irpbs
tV i$icw avTuv wrtltXtiav. e St. James ii. 14-26.
[ LECT.
They exhibit distinct types of the one doctrine. 281
trine is, at least, generally brought forward with a view to
some immediate practical object. Only in five out of his four
teen Epistles can the doctrinal element be said very decidedly to
predominate f. St. Paul assumes that his readers have gone
through a course of oral instruction in necessary Christian doc
trine S ; he accordingly completes, he expands, he draws out into
its consequences what had been already taught by himself or by
others. St. Paul's fiery and impetuous style is in keeping with
his general relation, throughout his Epistles, to Christian dogma.
The calm enunciation of an enchained series of consequences
flowing from some central or supreme truth is perpetually in
terrupted, in St. Paul, by the exclamations, the questions, the
parentheses, the anacoloutha, the quotations from liturgies, the
solemn ascriptions of glory to the Source of all blessings, the
outbursts by which argument suddenly melts into stern denun
ciation, or into versatile expostulation, or into irresistible appeals
to sympathy, or into the highest strains of lyrical poetry. Thus
it is that in St. Paul primary dogma appears, as it were, rather
in flashes of light streaming with rapid coruscations across his
pages, than in highly elaborated statements such as might
abound throughout a professed doctrinal treatise of some later
age ; and yet doctrine, although it might seem to be introduced
incidentally to some general or special purpose, nevertheless is
inextricably bound up with the Apostle's whole drift of practical
thought. As for St. John, he is always a contemplative and
f And yet in these five Epistles an immediate practical purpose is generally
discernible. In the Romans the Apostle is harmonizing the Jewish and
Gentile elements within the Catholic Church, by shewing that each section is
equally indebted to faith in Jesus Christ for a real justification before God.
In the Galatians he is opposing this same doctrinal truth to the destructive
and reactionary theory of the Judaizers. In the Ephesians and Colossians
he is meeting the mischievous pseudo-philosophy and Cabbalism of the ear
liest Gnostics, here positively and devotionally, there polemically, by insist
ing on the dignity of our Lord's Person, and the mystery of His relation to
the Church. In the Hebrews, written either by St. Paul himself or by
St. Luke under his direction, our Lord's Person and Priesthood are exhibited
in their several bearings as a practical reason against apostasy to Judaism (it
would seem) of an Alexandrian type.
B 1 Thess. iii. 10 : vvurbs kcu ri/xtpas inip e/c mpiffcrov SeSfievot cis 7b iSuv
iifuSv rb TrpSaonroPj not Karaprlaai t& vffT*pf\p.tna rrjs vltnfus v/xuv. The
Apostle desires to see the Roman Christians, not that he may teach them any
supplementary truths, but to confirm them in their existing belief (e/r
(TTnpixSfi>ai i/xas, Rom. i. 1 1) by the interchange of spiritual sympathies with
himself. See I Cor. xv. i; Gal. i. II, 12, iv. 13, 14; 1 Thess. ii. 1;
1 Thess. ii. 15. Compare 1 St. John ii. 21 : ovk cypmtya ifuv, 3ti ouk oiSotc
tV bkifitiav, AAA* oVi o?5oTe aliTTiv.
VI]
282 6V. yantes erroneotisly deemed Ebionitic.
mystical theologian. The eye of his soul is fixed on God, and
on the Word Incarnate. St. John simply describes his intui
tions. He does not argue ; he asserts. He looks up to heaven,
and as he gazes he tells us what he sees. He continually takes
an intuition, as it were, to pieces, and recombines it ; he resists
forms of thought which contradict it ; but he does not engage
in long arguments, as if he were a dialectician, defending or
attacking a theological thesis. Nor is St. John's temper any
mere love of speculation divorced from practice. Each truth
which the Apostle beholds, however unearthly and sublime, has
a directly practical and transforming power ; St. John knows
nothing of realms of thought which leave the heart and con
science altogether untouched. Thus, speaking generally, the
three Apostles respectively represent the moralist, the practical
dogmatist, and the saintly mystic ; while St. Peter, as becomes
the Apostle first in order in the sacred college, seems to blend
in himself the three types of apostolical teachers. His Epistles
are not without elements that more especially characterize
St. John ; while they harmonize in a very striking manner
those features of St. Paul and St. James which seem most nearly
to approach divergence. It may be added that St. Peter's
second Epistle finds its echo in St. Jude.
I. 1. The marked reserve which is observable in St. James'
Epistle as to matters of doctrine, combined with his emphatic
allusions to the social duties attaching to property and to class
distinctions, have been taken to imply that this Epistle repre
sents what is assumed by some theories of development to have
been the earliest form of Christianity. The earliest Christians
are sometimes referred to, as having been, both in their Christ-
ology and in their sociological doctrines, Ebionites. But St.
James' Epistle is so far from belonging to the teaching of the
earliest apostolical age, that it presupposes nothing less than a
very widespread and indirect effect of the distinctive teaching
of St. Paul. St. Paul's emphatic teaching respecting faith as the
receptive cause of justification must have been promulgated long
enough and widely enough to have been perverted into a parti
cular gnosis of an immoral Antinomian type. With that gnosis
St. James enters into earnest conflict. Baur indeed maintains
that St. James is engaged in a vehement onslaught upon the
actual teaching, upon the ipsissima verba, of St. Paul himself11.
1 Gal. v. 6.
m I Cor. xiii. 1 : lav «x(U iratrav rijv Trfortv, &trre 6pTf ntQuno'veiV, aydmjv
Se p4) ex<*>, oittiev eiat. The yvwtris of 1 Cor. viii. I seems to be substantially
identical with the bare irfoTij denounced by St. James, although the former
was probably of a more purely scientific and intellectual character. The
oyairT) of I Cor. viii. 1 is really the 7tiVtis Si' ayimis ivcpyov/itvT] of Gal. v. 6.
[lect.
presupposes the Christology of St. Paul. 285
acceptable to a perfectly holy God. But if on the question of
justification St. James' position is in substance identical with
that of St. Paul, yet St. James' position, viewed historically, does
undoubtedly presuppose not merely a wide reception of St. Paul's
teaching, but a perverse development of one particular side of it.
In order to do justice to St. James, we have to contemplate first,
the fruitless ' faith ' of the Antinomian, with which the Apostle
is immediately in conflict, and which he is denouncing ; next,
the living faith of the Christian believer, as insisted upon by
St. Paul, and subsequently caricatured by the Antinomian per
version ; lastly, the Object of the believer's living faith, Whose
Person and work are so prominent in St. Paul's teaching. It is
not too much to say that all this is in the mind of St. James.
But there was no necessity for his insisting upon what was well
understood ; he says only so much as is necessary for his imme
diate purpose. His Epistle is related to the Pauline Epistles in
the general scheme of the New Testament, as an explanatory
codicil might be to a will. The codicil does not the less repre
sent the mind of the testator because it is not drawn up by the
same lawyer as the will itself. The codicil is rendered necessary
by some particular liability to misconstruction, which has be
come patent since the time at which the will was drawn up.
Accordingly the codicil defines the real intention of the testator;
it guards that intention against the threatened misconstruction.
But it does not repeat in detail all the provisions of the will, in
order to protect the true sense of a single clause. Still less does
it revoke any one of those provisions ; it takes for granted the
entire document to which it is appended.
The elementary character of parts of the moral teaching of
St. James is sometimes too easily assumed to imply that that
Apostle must be held to represent the earliest stage of the sup
posed developments of apostolical Christianity. But is it not
possible that in apostolical as well as in later times, ' advanced '
Christians may have occasionally incurred the danger of forget
ting some important precepts even of natural morality, or of
supposing that their devotion to particular truths or forms of
thought, or that their experience of particular states of feeling,
constituted a religious warrant for such forgetfulness n 1 If this
n After making reference to Luther's designation of this Epistle as an
' Epistle of straw,' a modern French Protestant writer proceeds as follows :
' Nous-mfimes, nous ne pouvons considerer la doctrine de Jacques ni comme
bien logique, ni comme suffisante ; nous y voyons la grande pense"s de Jesus
re'trecie et appauvrie par le principe legal du mosalsme. Le christianisme de '
TI]
286 Moral truth the basis of dogmatic faith.
was indeed the case, St. James' Epistle is placed in its true light
■when we see in it a healthful appeal to that primal morality,
which can never be ignored or slighted without the most certain
risk to those revealed truths, such as our Lord's plenary Satis
faction for sin, in which the enlightened conscience finds its final
relief from the burden and misery of recognized guilt. If the
sensitiveness of conscience be dulled or impaired, the doctrines
which relieve the anguish of conscience will soon lose their
power. St. Paul himself is perpetually insisting upon the nature
and claims of Christian virtue, and on the misery and certain
consequences of wilful sin. St. James, as the master both of
natural and of Christian ethics, is in truth reinforcing St. Paul,
the herald and exponent of the doctrines of redemption and
justification. Thus St. James' moral teaching generally, not less
than his special polemical discussion of the question of justifica
tion, appears to presuppose St. Paul. It presupposes St. Paul
as we know him now in his glorious Epistles, enjoining the
purest and loftiest Christian sanctity along with the most perfect
acceptance by faith of the Person and work of the Divine
Eedeemer. But it also presupposes St. Paul, as Gnostics who
preceded Marcion had already misrepresented him, as the
idealized sophist of the earliest Antinomian fancies, the sophist
who had proclaimed a practical or avowed divorce between the
sanctions of morality and the honour of Christ. There is at
times a flavour of irony in St. James' language, such as might
force a passage for the voice of truth and love through the dense
tangle of Antinomian self-delusions. St. James urges that to
listen to Christian teaching without reducing it to practice is
but the moral counterpart of a momentary listless glance in a
polished mirror 0 ; and that genuine devotion is to be really
tested by such practical results as works of mercy done to the
afflicted and the poor, and by conscientious efforts to secure the
inward purity of an unworldly life P.
Jacques n'e"tait cpx'h, demi e'mancipe' des entraves de la loi ; c'e"tait un degre"
inferieur du Christianisme, et qui ne contenait pas en germe tous les de"ve-
loppements futurs de la vente" chre'tienne. II est douteux que cette fipltre
ait jamais converti personne.' Premieres Transformations du Christianisme,
par A. Coquerel fils. Paris, 1866. (p. 65.)
0 St. James i. 23 : et tis aKpoar^s \6yov 4<ttI ko.\ ov ironjT^s, ovtos %oik*v
avUpl KaravoovvTi t& irp&wirov rrts ytv4ffetas avrov Iv eVoVrpy KareioJijcre yap
eavrbv, Kal aireA^Atifo, Kal euBecas 4-7re\d0fTo iiroios %v.
P Ibid. ver. 27 : dpqo-Kela Kadapa Kal afiiavros iraph tw 0€$ Kal riarpl auTTj
iffr)?, iirurKeirTeirQai opcpavobs teal x^Pas ^v TV 0^tye* °yTC5f'» &tnri\of kavrhv
rripeiv anb tov ntfrtiov.
[ LECT.
Christianity considered as the New Law. 287
2. In his earnest opposition to the Antinomian principle
St. James insists upon the continuity of the New dispensation
with the Old. Those indeed who do not believe the representa
tions of the great Apostles given us in the Acts to have been a
romance of the second century, composed with a view to recon
ciling the imagined dissensions of the sub-apostolical Church,
will not fail to note the significance of St. James' attitude at the
Council of Jerusalem. After referring to the prophecy of Amos
as confirmatory of St. Peter's teaching respecting the call of the
Gentiles, St. James advises that no attempt should be made to
impose the Jewish law generally upon the Gentile converts 1.
Four points of observance were to be insisted on, for reasons of
very various kinds r ; but the general tenor of the speech proves
how radically the Apostle had broken with Judaism as a living
system. Yet in his Epistle the real continuity of the Law and
the Gospel is undeniably prominent. Considering Christianity
as a rule of life based upon a revealed creed, St. James terms it
also a Law. But the Christian Law is no mere reproduction of
the Sinaitic. The New Law of Christendom is distinguished by
epithets which define its essential superiority to the law of the
synagogue, and which moreover indirectly suggest the true
dignity of its Founder. The Christian law is the law of liberty
—vopos rrjs ikfvOeptas s. To be really obeyed it must be obeyed
in freedom. A slave cannot obey the Christian law, because it
demands not merely the production of certain outward acts, but
the living energy of inward motives, whose soul and essence is
love. Only a son whom Christ has freed from slavery, and
whose heart would rejoice, if so it might be, to anticipate or to
go beyond his Father's Will, can offer that free service which is
exacted by the law of liberty. That service secures to all his
faculties their highest play and exercise ; the Christian is most
conscious of the buoyant sense of freedom when he is most
eager to do the Will of his Heavenly Parent. The Christian law,
which is the law of love, is further described as the royal law—
1 St. James ii. 8: «t fxtmoi v&nov reKure BafftXiicbv, Karci rijv ypatp^v,
'Ayaw^ffcts rbv TrKtjffiov <rov ws treavrbv, rcaAws woieire. This compendium of
the Christian's whole duty towards his neighbour, as enjoined by our Blessed
Lord (St. Matt. xxii. 39; St. Mark xii. 31), is not a mere republication of
the Mosaic precept (Lev. xix. 18). In the latter the 'neighbour' is appa
rently 'one of the children of thy people ;' in the former it includes any
member of the human family, since it embraced even those against whom the
Jew had the strongest religious prepossessions. (St. Lukex. 29, sqq.) This
injunction of a love of man as man, according to the measure of each man's
love of self, is the law of the true King of humanity, Jesus Christ our Lord.
■ Rom. xiii. 9. * St. James i. 25.
y St. James i. 18 : frovXTjOtls av€Kvij(Tfv Tjfias \6ycp a\T]8e'ias, tis rb tlvai
7}[ias airayx^l1' tivo. Tap avrov KTurfidTav. airoKieiy is elsewhere used of the
female parent. Hence it indicates the tenderness of the Divine love, as
shewn in the new birth of souls ; just as $ov\ri9els points to the freedom of
the grace which regenerates them, and airapxhv two. tuv Kricr^idruv to the
end and purpose of their regeneration. Compare St. John i. 12, 13 : '6<rot Si
e\a&oi/ avrbv . . e« 0eou iyefv^dijaav.
z St. James i. 21 : £v TrpavTTiri 54£cur9e rbv %fi<pvrov \6yovt rbv tivvAftevov
awaai vhs tyvxas vixwv. Messmer in loc. : ' Die Offenbarung heisst hier das
eingepflanzte, eingewachsene Wort ; namlich bei der Wiedergeburt durch die
christliche Lehre eingepflanzt. Wenn nun von einem Aufnehmen der ein-
gepflanzten Lehre die Rede ist, so ist das natiirlich nicht die erste Aufnahme,
sondern vielmehr das immer innigere Insichhineinnehmen und Aneignen der-
selben und das Sichhineinleben in dieselbe.' See too Dean Alford in loc. :
'The Word whose attribute and opei-^ it is to be c/upvTos, and which is
ipfyvTos, awaiting your reception of it, to spring up and take up your being
into it and make you new plants.'
[ LECT.
St.yames' direct references to our Blessed Lord. 289
without it, human souls are utterly incapable of yielding. This
Xo-yos is clearly not the mere texture of the language in which
the faith is taught. It is not the bare thought of the believer
moulded into conformity with the ideas suggested by the lan
guage. It is the very substance and core of the doctrine ; it is
He in Whom the doctrine centres ; it is the Person of Jesus
Christ Himself, Whose Humanity is the Sprout, Shoot, or
Branch of Judah, engrafted by His Incarnation upon the old
stock of humanity, and sacramentally engrafted upon all living
Christian souls. Is not St. James here in fundamental agree
ment not merely with St. Paul, but with St. John ? St. James'
picture of the new law of Christendom harmonizes with St. Paul's
teaching, that the old law of Judaism without the grace of
Christ does but rouse a sense of sin which it cannot satisfy, and
that therefore the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
made Christians free from the law of sin and death ». St. James'
doctrine of the Engrafted Word is a compendium of the first,
third, and sixth chapters of St. John's Gospel ; the word written
or preached does but unveil to the soul the Word Incarnate, the
Word Who can give a new life to human nature, because He is
Himself the Source of Life.
It is in correspondence with these currents of doctrine that
St. James, although our Lord's own first cousinb, opens his
Epistle by representing himself as standing in the same relation,
to Jesus Christ as to God. He is the slave of God and of our
Lord Jesus Christ c. In like manner, throughout his Epistle,
he appears to apply the word Kvpws to the God of the Old
Testament and to Jesus Christ, quite indifferently. Especially
noteworthy is his assertion that the Lord Jesus Christ, the
Judge of men, is not the delegated representative of an absent
Majesty, but is Himself the Legislator enforcing His own laws.
The Lawgiver, he says, is One Being with the Judge Who can
• Baur admits that 'dem Verfasser des Briefs auch die paulinische Verin-
nerlichung des Gesetzes nicht fremd^iqdem er nicht bios das Gebot der Liebe
als kbnigliches Gesetz bezeichnet, soddern auoh von eiriem Gesetze der Frei-
heit spricht, zu welchem ihm das Gfesetzi mir dadurch geworden sein kann,
dass er, der Aeusserlichkeit des Gesetzes gegeniiber sich innerlich ebenso frei
von ihm wusste, wie der Apostel Paulus von seinem Standpunkt aus.'
Christenthum, p. 122.
b Comp. St. Matt, xxvii. 56, St. Mark xv. 40, with St. John xix. 25. Sea
Pearson on Creed, Art. Hi. ; Mill on Myth. Int. p. 126 ; Bp. Ellicott, Huls.
Lect. pp. 97, 354.
c St. James i. 1 : 'Mxa/los 0eoC ko! Kvplov 'Iij<rou Xpiarov Sov\os.
VI] U
39° Reverential reserve of St. James.
save and can destroy6 ; the Son of man, coming in the clouds of
heaven, has enacted the law which He thus administers. With
a reverence which is as practical as his teaching is suggestive,
St. James in this one short Epistle reproduces more of the
words spoken by Jesus Christ our Lord than are to be found in
all the other Epistles of the New Testament taken together f.
He hints that all social barriers between man and man are as
nothing when we place mere human eminence in the light of
Christ's majestic Person ; and when he names the faith of Jesus
Christ, he terms it with solemn emphasis the ' faith of the Lord
of Glory,' thus adopting one of the most magnificent of St. Paul's
expressions S, and attributing to our Lord a Majesty altogether
above this human world n. In short, St. James' recognition of
the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity is just what we might expect
it to be if we take into account the mainly practical scope of
his Epistle. Our Lord's Divinity is never once formally proposed
as a doctrine of the faith ; but it is largely, although indirectly,
implied. It is implied in language which would be exaggerated
and overstrained on any other supposition. It is implied in a
reserve which may be felt to mean at least as much as the most
demonstrative protestations. A few passing expressions of the
lowliest reverence disclose the great doctrine of the Church
respecting the Person of her Lord, throned in the background of
the Apostle's thought. And if the immediate interests of his
ministry oblige St. James to confine himself to considerations
which do not lead him more fully to exhibit the doctrine, we are
• St. James iv. 12 : ch ianv S pou.oBeriis xai Kpiriis S Swifievos owai xal
airoAtVai. (nai npirlis is omitted by text recept., inserted by A. B.N.) So
De Wette : ' Einer ist der Gesetzgeber und Richter, der da vermag zu retten
und zu verderben.' Cf. Alford in loc, who quotes this.
* The following are his references to the Sermon on the Mount. St.James
i. 2 ; St. Matt. v. 10-12. St. James i. 4 ; St. Matt. v. 48. St. James i. 5 ;
St. Matt. vii. 7. St. James i. 9 ; St. Matt. v. 3. St. James i. 20 ; St. Matt,
v. 22. St. James ii. 13 ; St. Matt. vi. 14, 15, v. 7. St. James ii. 14 sqq. ;
St. Matt. vii. 21 sqq. St. James iii. 17, 18 ; St. Matt. v. 9. St. James iv. 4 ;
St. Matt. vi. 24. St. James iv. 10 ; St. Matt. v. 3, 4. St. James iv. U ;
St. Matt. vii. 1 sqq. St. James v. 2; St. Matt. vi. 19. St. James v. 10;
St. Matt. v. 12. St. James v. 12 ; St. Matt. v. 33 sqq. And for other dis
courses of our Lord : St. James i. 14 ; St. Matt. xv. 19. St. James iv. 12 ;
St. Matt. x. 28. Again, St. James v. 1-6 ; St. Luke vi. 24 sqq. See reff. ;
and Alford, vol. iv. p. 107, note. s 1 Cor. ii. 8.
h St. James ii. I : aSe\<poi p.ov, juJ) h irpotxuTroKif^iiaii ?xfTe TV irlora tov
Kvpiov fi/juiv 'l-qffov XpitTTov rrjs 5<J|ijs. Here ttjs S6£t}s must be regarded as
a second genitive governed by Kvpiov. Or, as Dean Alford suggests, it may
be an epithetal genitive, such as constantly follows the mention of the Divine
Name.
[lect.
Missionary Sermons of St. Peter. 391
not allowed, as we read him, to forget the love and awe which
veil and treasure it, so tenderly and so reverently, in the inmost
sanctuary of his illuminated soul.
II. Of St. Peter's recorded teaching there are two distinct
stages in the New Testament. The first is represented by his
missionary sermons in the Acts of the Apostles ; the second by
his general Epistles.
1. Although Jesus Christ is always the central Subject in the
sermons of this Apostle, yet the distinctness with which he
exhibits our Lord in the glory of His Divine Nature seems to
vary with the varying capacity for receiving truth on the part
of his audience. Like Jesus Christ Himself, St. Peter teaches as
men are able to bear his doctrine; he does not cast pearls before
swine. In his missionary sermons he is addressing persons who
were believers in the Jewish dispensation, and who were also
our Lord's contemporaries. Accordingly, his sermons contain a
. double appeal ; first, to the known facts of our Lord's Life and
Death, and above all, of His Resurrection from the dead ; and
secondly, to the correspondence of these facts with the predictions
of the Hebrew Scriptures. Like St. James, St. Peter lays
especial stress on the continuity subsisting between Judaism and
the Gospel. But while St. James insists upon the moral element
of that connexion, St. Peter addresses himself rather to the pro
phetical. Even before the Day of Pentecost, St. Peter points
to the Psalter as foreshadowing the fall of Judas'. When
preaching to the multitude which had just witnessed the Pente
costal gifts, St. Peter observes that these wonders are merely a
realization of the prediction of Joel respecting the last days k ;
and he argues elaborately that the language of David in the
sixteenth Psalm could not have been fulfilled in the case of the
prophet-king himself, still lying among his people in his
honoured sepulchre, while it had been literally fulfilled by
Jesus Christ Who had notoriously risen from the grave. In
his sermon to the multitude after the healing of the lame man
in the Porch of Solomon, St. Peter contends that the sufferings
of Christ had been ' shewed before' on the part of the God of
Israel by the mouth of all His prophets m, and that in Jesus
Christ the prediction of Moses respecting a coming Prophet, to
Whom the true Israel would yield an implicit obedience, had
received its explanation11. When arraigned before the Council0,
1 Acts i. 16, 20. Cf. Ps. xli. 9, lxix. 25. k Acts ii. 14-11; Joel ii. 28-31.
1 Acts ii. 24-36. m Ibid. iii. 18.
= Ibid. iii. 22-24; Dent, xviii. 15, 18, 19. 0 Acta iv. 11.
Tl] U2
292 Christ the chief theme of Hebrew prophecy.
the Apostle insists that Jesus is that true ' Corner-stone' of the
temple of souls, which had been foretold both by Isaiah p, and by
a later Psalmisti; and that although He had been set at nought
by the builders of Israel, He was certainly exalted and honoured
by God. In the instruction delivered to Cornelius before his
baptism, St. Peter states that ' all the prophets give witness ' to
Jesus, 'that through His Name, whosoever believeth on Him
shall receive remission of sins1.' And we seem to trace the
influence of St. Peter, as the first great Christian expositor of
prophecy, in the teaching of the deacons St. Stephen and
St. Philip. St. Philip's exposition of Christian doctrine to the
Ethiopian eunuch was based upon Isaiah's prediction of the
Passion9. St. Stephen's argument before his judges was cut
short by a violent interruption, while it was yet incomplete.
But St. Stephen, like St. Peter, appeals to the prediction in
Deuteronomy of the Prophet to Whom Israel would hearken
And the drift of the protomartyr's address goes to shew, that
the whole course of the history of Israel pointed to the advent
of One Who should be greater than either the law or the temple",
—of One in Whom Israel's wonderful history would reach its
natural climax,—of that ' Just One ' Who in truth had already
come, but Who, like prophets before Him, had been betrayed
and murdered by a people, still as of old, ' stiffhecked and un-
circumcised in heart and ears x.'
It is not too much to say that in the teaching of the earliest
Church, as represented by the missionary discourses of St. Peter
and the deacons, Jesus Christ is the very soul and end of Jewish
prophecy. This of itself suggests an idea of His Person which
rises high above any merely Humanitarian standard. St. Peter
indeed places himself habitually at the point of view which
would enable him to appeal to the actual experience of the
generation he was addressing. He begins with our Lord's
Humiliation, which men had witnessed, and then he proceeds to
describe His Exaltation as the honour put by God upon His
Human Nature. He speaks of our Lord's Humanity with fearless
plainness y. The Man Christ Jesus is exhibited to the world as
4 a St. Pet. i. 9.
e Ibid. ii. 20 : airoipvydrrfs Ta fiid<T/iara tov K6<r/u>v if lirryviiaei tov
Kvpiov Kal ffurijpos 'Iijaov Xpurrov. Cf. Ibid. i. 4 : airo<pvy6vr(s T7)s 4v
ttdafxtp 4v 4vt9vfila tpQopas.
f Ibid. i. I T : ovrco yap ir\ov<rlas 4-7rixopTjy7}&fi(reTat vfuv y eXaoSos eis r^y
altbvtov f}a<Ti\eiav tov Kvpiov ytiSiv koX vayrfjpos '\7]o~ov Xpiorov.
5 Ibid. iii. 17, 18 : <pu\d<rcrta6f, 'Iva pM tj; toiv adtcrfiwv irXivri trvvairaxBtv
res, iiartayiTf tov iSlov ffTTjptyfiov' av^dvere 4v x&PlTl Ko1 yvOifftl tov
Kvpiov TjvMy Kal trarripos 'Iritrov Xpiorov.
b Ibid. ii. I : TrapeiG&tovo-tv aip4<reis airwAefas, Kal rbv ayopdaavra avTovs
ActnrOTiiv apvovp.evoi, 4icdyovT€s 4avro7s Taxivijv awia\eiav.
1 Ibid. i. 16: oit yap treffo<pto-fji4vois p-vdois i^aKoKovQ-iiaavr^s 4yvwplffan(v
vp.iv tt\v tov Kvpiov Tjfiuv 'I?;<rou Xpiorov Svvap.iv Kal vapovalav.
i Ibid. : 4ir&mat yerriBivrfs rrjs 4ictli>ov titya\ti6T7iro$. Ibid. ver. 18 : In
t£ opei t$ aylot.
k Ibid, ver. 14 : eiHiis bWi Taxivfi 4ffriv tj &Tr69eats tov fficnvti>p.aT6s p.ov9
xatos Kal 4 Kipios fip.wv 'iTjffous Xpiffrbs 4$4\Kaa4 fioi. Here TaX"d) seems to
mean 'soon,' 'not distant,' rather than 'rapid.' Cf. St. John xxi. 18; but
[ LECT.
Christology of St. Jude. 301
Throughout this Epistle the Person of Jesus is constantly before
us. As He is the true Object of Christian knowledge, so He is
the Lord of the future kingdom of the saints. He is mocked at
and denied by the heretics ; His Coming it is which the scoffing
materialism of the age derides ; His judgments are foreshadowed
by the great destructive woes of the Old Testament. Again
and again, as if with a reverent eagerness which takes pleasure
in the sacred words, the Apostle names his Master's Name and
titles. He is Jesus our Lord1 ; He is our Lord Jesus Christ m;
He is the Lord and Saviour " ; He is our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ0; He is our God and Saviour Jesus Christ P. His
power is spoken of as Divine 9 ; and through the precious things
promised by Him to His Church (must we not here specially
understand the sacraments?) Christians are made partakers of
the Nature of Godr. To Christ, in His exalted majesty, a
tribute of glory is due, both now and unto the day of eternity 8.
Throughout this Epistle Jesus Christ is constantly named where
we should expect to find the Name of God. The Apostle does
not merely proclaim the Divinity of Jesus in formal terms ; he
everywhere feels and implies it.
III. Akin to St. Peter's second Epistle in its language and
purpose is the short Epistle of St. Jude. Like his brother
St. James, St. Jude, although our Lord's first cousin, introduces
himself as the slave of Jesus Christ. St. Jude does not also
term himself the slave of God*. If believing Christians are
sanctified in God the Father, they are preserved in a life of
faith and holiness by union with Jesus Christ u. The religion
of Jesus, according to St. Jude, is the final revelation of God,
the absolute truth, the true faith. Men should spare no efforts
some independent revelation, made shortly before these words were written,
is probably alluded to. Hegesippus, de Excidio Hierosol. lib. iii. 2 ; St. Am-
bros. Serm. contra Auxentium, de Basilicis tradendis, n. 13 in Epist. 21.
1 2 St. Pet. i. 2. This occurs elsewhere only at Rom. iv. 24.
m 2 St. Pet. i. 14, 16. " Ibid. iii. 2. 0 Ibid. i. 11, ii. 20, iii. 18.
P Ibid. i. I. Cf. Bp. Middleton on Gr. Art. p. 433.
* Ibid. i. 3 : ttis Betas Svvdfjieajs avrov ra irphs fabv Kal evtreftetav StScapq-
lifpris. aurov apparently refers to 'Vqaov (ver. 2), and is so distinguished from
the Eternal Father tou KoAtVai'Tos ^/uS$ (ver. 3).
* Ibid. ver. 4 : tI/mm imyyiKiiara 8eSify>7)Tai, lua Sia tovtuv yivrtaBe flei'aj
KOtvatvol tpfotus.
" Ibid. iii. 18 : ain$ jj 5<i|a zeal vvv <cal «is Tj/tifpac aluivos. 'Tota aeternitas
una dies est.' Estius.
t St. Jude ver. I : '\r\aov Xpurrov SovXos, aSeXcpdy 5e 'Iqkc6£ov.
Q Ibid. : rots 4v 0€$ narpl Tyyiaafi^fots Kai 'Itjgov XpiffTqi Terrjp7]ft€yoi$
K\7)To7$.
vi] :
3oa Christology of St. Paul.
on behalf of the true faith. It is the faith once for all delivered
to the saints x. The Gnostics alluded to in this Epistle, like
those foretold by St. Peter, are said to ' deny our only Sovereign
and Lord, Jesus Christ >'.' They are threatened with the punish
ments awarded to unbelieving Israel in the wilderness, to the
rebel angels, to Sodom and Gomorrhaz. The Book of Enoch
is cited to describe Jesus coming to the universal judgment,
Burrounded by myriads of saints8. The authors of all unholy
deeds will then be convicted of their crimes ; the hard things
spoken against the Judge by impious sinners will be duly
punished. Christians, however, are to build themselves up upon
their most holy faith b : their life is fashioned in devotion to
the Blessed Trinity. It is a life of prayer : their souls live in
the Holy Spirit as in an atmosphere0. It is a life of persevering
love, whereof the Almighty Father is the Object d. It is a life
of expectation : they look forward to the indulgent mercy which
our Lord Jesus Christ will shew them at His coming e. Christ
is the Being to Whom they look for mercy ; and the issue of
His compassion is everlasting life. Could any merely human
Christ have had this place in the heart and faith of Christians;
or on the judgment-seat of God ?
IV. But it is time that we should proceed to consider, how
ever briefly, the witness of that great Apostle, whose Epistles
form so much larger a contribution to the sacred volume of the
New Testament than is supplied by any other among the inspired
servants of Christ.
I. In comparing St. Paul with St. John, a modern author has
remarked that at first sight two objects stand out prominently
in the theological teaching of the beloved disciple, while three
immediately challenge observation in the writings of the Apostle
of the Gentiles. At first sight, St. John's doctrine appears to
place us face to face only with God and the human world. Christ
x St. Jude ver. 3: vapaKa\wv 4irayuv{fecr6aL t§ &Tra£ irapaSoQeltrrf rots
aytots ir'itrrti.
y Ibid. ver. 4 : rdv fxSvov AftnrtJ-njp koI Kvpiov TifiSov 'iTiffovv Xpiorbv
ipvovpevot. 1 Ibid. vers. 5-7.
* Ibid. ver. 14: ^A06 Kvpios iv fivptdaiv aylcus avrov, iroiTjoat Kplfftv jear&
ndi/Twv.
b Ibid. ver. 20 : vpeis 8e, a-yamjTol, rrj ayiandTT) vpwv irfarei iirotKob'o-
fiovvres €avro6s.
c Ibid. : ly Tiveifiari 'Ayttp irpo(rcvxfoevoi.
4 Ibid. ver. 2 1 : eavrobs Iv i-yoTrp ®eov Tripiitrare.
• Ibid. : wpoattxiptyot rb (\tos tov Kvpiov ripa/v 'IiJffoC Xpurrov, tit fu>V
alupwy.
[LECT.
Its distinctive form. Christ's Manhood. 303
as the Eternal Logos is in St. John plainly identical with God ;
although when we contemplate the life of the Godhead He is dis
cerned to be personally distinct from the Father. But we cannot
really understand St. John, and withal establish in our thought
an essential separation between God and the Word Incarnate.
Although Jesus is a manifestation of God's glory in the world
of sense, He is ever internal to that Divine Essence Whose glory
He manifests ; He is with God, and He is God. In St. Paul,
on the other hand, we are confronted more distinctly with three
objects. These are, God, the human world, and between the
two, Jesus Christ, Divine and Human, the One Mediator between
God and man. Of course the primdfacie impression produced
on the mind by the sacred writers is all that is here in question,
and this impression is not to be confounded with their real
relations to each other. The Christ of St. John is as truly
Human as the Christ of St. Paul is literally Divine ; St. John
exhibits the Mediator not less truly than St. Paul, St. Paul the
Divine Son of the Father not less truly than St. John. But the
observation referred to enables us to do justice to the form of
St. Paul's Christology ; and we may well observe in his writings
the prominence which is given to two truths which supply the
foil, on this side and on that, to the doctrine of our Lord's
essential Godhead.
(a) St. Paul insists with particular earnestness upon the truth
of our Lord's real Humanity. This truth is not impaired by
such expressions as the ' form of a servant f,' the ' fashion of a
man the ' likeness of sinful flesh h,' which are employed either
to describe Christ's Humanity as a mode of being, or to hint at
Its veiling a Higher Nature undiscerned by the senses of man,
or to mark the point at which, by Its glorious inaccessibility to
sin, It is in contrast with the nature of that frail and erring race
to which It truly belongs. Nor is our Lord's Humanity con
ceived of as a phantom, when the Apostle has reached a point
of spiritual growth at which the outward circumstances of Christ's
Life are wellnigh forgotten in an overmastering perception of
His spiritual and Divine glory ». St. Paul speaks plainly of our
Lord as being manifest in the flesh k ; as possessing a Body of
in the inner Being of God. But the visible subjection of His Humanity
(with Which His Church is so organically united as to be called ' Christ'
1 Cor. xii. 1 2) to the supremacy of God will be realized at the close of the
present dispensation. Against the attempt to infer from this passage an
iwoKardtrTatris of men and devils, cf. Meyer in loc. ; and against Pantheistic
inferences from to. irdma iv Ta.au/, cf. Julius Mttller, Lehre von d. Siinde, i.
p. 157, quoted ibid.
k There seems, however, to be a distinction between such visions and
trances as those of 2 Cor. xii. 1-4; Acts xviii. 9; xxii. 17, and the appearance
of Jesus Christ at midday, at St. Paul's conversion, Acts ix. 17. Of this
last St. Paul appears to speak more especially in 1 Cor. ix 1, and xv. 8. Cf.
Macpherson on the Resurrection, p. 330.
1 Rom. i. 20 : to. yap a6para avrov anb /rnVews ic6ff[xov tois iroi'fi/xaai
vooi/xeva KaBoparat. ; ...
m Ibid. xi. 36 : ort i% avrov Kat 81 avrov ko\ els avrbv to, ndvra. 'Alles*ist
aits Gott (Urgrund), in sofern Alles aus Gottes Schopferkrafte hervorgegangen
ist ; durch Gott ( Vermitteltmgsgrvmd), in sofern nichts ohne Gottes Ver-,
mittelung (continuirliche Einwirkung) existirt ; fur Gott (teleologische £e-
stimmung), in sofern Alles den Zwecken Gottes dient.' Meyer in loc.
■ Baur, Vorlesungen, p. 205 : ' Auf dieser Auffassung der Idee Gottes
beruht der TJniversalismus des Apostels, wie er diess in dem Satz ausspricht,
VI ] X 2
308 Ground of St. Paul's judgment of Paganism.
Hence the Apostle infers the deep misery of Paganism. The
Pagan representation of Deity was 'a lie' by which this essential
truth of God's Being0 was denied. The Pagans had forfeited
that partial apprehension of the glory of the incorruptible God
which the physical universe and the light of natural conscience
placed within their reach. They had yielded to those instincts
of creature-worship p which mere naturalism is ever prone to
indulge. The Incarnation alone subdues these instincts by
consecrating them to the service of God Incarnate ; while beyond
the Church they perpetually threaten naturalistic systems with
an utter and disastrous subjection to the empire of sense. When
man then had fairly lost sight of the Unity and Spirituality of
God, Paganism speedily allowed him to sink beneath a flood of
nameless sensualities ; he had abandoned the Creator to become,
in the most debased sense, the creature's slave 5.
At another time the Apostle's thought rests for an instant
upon the elegant but impure idolatries to which the imagination
and the wealth of Greece had consecrated those beautiful temples
which adorned the restored city of Corinth. ' To us Christians,'
he fervently exclaims, ' there is but one God, the Father ; all
things owe their existence to Him, and we live for His purposes
and His glory r.' In after years, St. Paul is writing to a fellow-
labourer for Christ, and he has in view some of those Gnostic
imaginations which already proposed to link earth with heaven
by a graduated hierarchy of 2Eons, thus threatening the re-
introduction either of virtual polytheism or of conscious creature-
worship. Against this mischievous speculation the Apostle
utters his protest ; but it issues from his adoring soul upwards
dasa Gott sowohl der Heiden als der Juden Gott sei Rom. ii. 1 1, iii. 29,
x. 12. Das Christenthum ist selbst nichts anderes (it is this, but it is
a great deal more) als die Aufhebung alles Particularistischen, damit die
reine absolute Gottes-Idee in der Menschheit sich verwirkliche, oder in ilir
zum Bewusstsein komme.' The Pantheistic touch of the last phrase does
not destroy the general truth of the observation.
0 Rom. i. 35 : fierijWa^av t^v a\i]deiav tov 0eoG 4v t£ t^et/Sci.
P Ibid. vers. 18-25; especially 23: ijAAaJai' tV 8<f{av toB a<p9iprou
&eov iv 6(u>i(6fiaTi eiK6vos <p6aprov avQptimov real Trmivtov /cat TeTpawSHuv
Hal epireT&v, k.t.K.
1 Ibid. ver. 24 : irapftaittv aiirobs & ®eb$ 4v rais inLQvfiiats rwv icapdiwv
avruv eij axaBapaiav. Ibid. ver. 26 : fit itiBj] un/tlas. Ibid. ver. 28 : els
&SoKi/iov vovv. See the whole context.
» I Cor. viii. 5, 6 : /col yiip tfirep flat \eyop.cvoi fleol, flfre iv ovpapep, «fre
^irl yijs (the two spheres of polytheistic invention) &<rwep ei'oi fleol iroAAol,
/cal Kvpwt iroWol' oAA' ri/uv th ®(bs 6 noT^p, i{ oS Ta ttoVto, /cal ij/iMTr
eh avr6v.
[ LECT.
Bearing of his monotheism on his Christology. 309
to the footstool of the One Supreme and Almighty Being in the
richest and most glorious of the doxologies which occur in his
Epistles. God is the King of the ages of the world ; He is the
imperishable, invisible, only wise Being8. God is the Blessed
and Only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords ; He
only has from Himself, and originally, immortality ; He dwells
in the light which is inaccessible to creatures ; no man has seen
Him ; no man can see Him ; let honour and power be for
ever ascribed to Him*.
St. Paul is, beyond all question, an earnest monotheist; his faith
is sensitively jealous on behalf of the supremacy and the rights
of God. What then is the position which he assigns to Jesus
Christ in the scale of being 1 That he believed Jesus Christ to
be merely a man is a paradox which could be maintained by no
careful reader of his Epistles. But if, according to St. Paul,
Christ is more than man, what is He? Is He still only an Arian
Christ ? or is He a Divine Person t In St. Paul's thought this
question could not have been an open one. His earnest, sharply-
defined faith in the One Most High God must force him to say
either that Christ is a created being, or that He is internal to
the Essence of God. Nor is the subject of such a nature as to
admit of accommodation or compromise in its treatment. In
practical matters, and where the law of God permits, St. Paul
may become all things to all men that he may by all means save
some u. But he cannot, as if he were a pagan politician of old,
or a modern man of the world, compliment away his deepest
faith *. He cannot ascribe Divinity to a fellow-creature by way
of panegyrical hyperbole ; his belief in God is too powerful, too
exacting, too keen, too real. St. Paul may teach the Athenians
that we live and move and have our being in the all-present, all-
encompassing Life of God y ; he may bid the Corinthians expect
a time when God shall be known and felt by every member of
1 I Tim. i. 17: t$ Se f}a<Ti\u twc alAvwv, oc£0apTy, bopdrtp p.6vtp ffotyy ®e$,
rtfi^f Kal 5d£a els robs aluivas twv al&vwv. Here n6vt>3 trotptp 0f$, excludes
current Gnostic claims on behalf of .Sons; in Rom. xvi. 37, (with which
compare St. Jude 15,) it contrasts the Divine Wisdom manifested in the
plan of Redemption through Jesus Christ with human schemes and theories,
whether Jewish or Gentile.
1 I Tim. vi. 15, 16 : 6 p.aK&ptos teal p.6vos Swdtrrris, b &a<rt\tvs tuv jSatn-
\(v6vtwv, Kal Kuptos rtav Kvpitv6vTwv, 6 pl6vos %xwv Mavafftav, <p&s oIkwv
&wp6(rtTov, %v tiZtv ouSels avOpt&irwv, ovbe iSeiv Mvaiai, 91 ripfy Kal Kpdros
" 1 Cor. ix. t2. * 2 Cor. i. 18, ii. 17. J Acts xvii. 28.
VI]
310 St. Paul's devotion to our Lord's condescension.
His great family to be all in all2. But St. Paul cannot merge the
Maker and Ruler of the universe, so gloriously free in His creative
and providential action6, in any conception which identifies Him
with the work of His hands, or which reduces Him to the level
of an impersonal quality or force. The Apostle may contemplate
the vast hierarchy of the blessed angels, ranging in their various
degrees of glory between the throne of God and the children of
men b. But no heavenly intelligence, however exalted, is seen
in his pages to trench for one moment upon the incommunicable
prerogatives of God. St. Paul may describe the regenerate life
of Christians in such terms as to warrant us in saying that
Christ's true members become divine by spiritual communion
with God in His Blessed Son c. But the saintliest of men, the
most exalted and majestic of seraphs, are alike removed by an
infinite interval from the One Uncreated, Self-exi stent, Incor
ruptible Essence d. There is no room in St. Paul's thought for
an imaginary being like the Arian Christ, hovering indistinctly
between created and Uncreated life ; since, where God is be
lieved to be so utterly remote from the highest creatures beneath
His throne, Christ must either be conceived of as purely and
simply a creature witli no other than a creature's nature and
rights, or He must be adored as One Who is for ever and neces
sarily internal to the Uncreated Life of the Most High.
2. It has been well observed by the author of 'Ecce Homo'
that ' the trait in Christ which filled St. Paul's whole mind was
His condescension;' and that 'the charm of that condescension
lay in its being voluntary e.' Certainly. But condescension is
the act of bending from a higher station to a lower one ; and
the question is, from what did Christ condescend 1 If Christ was
merely human, what was the human eminence from which
St. Paul believed Him to be stooping? Was it a social emi
nence t But as the favourite of the synagogue, and withal as pro
tected by the majesty of the Boman franchise1, St. Paul occupied
a social position not less widely removed from that of a Galilean
peasant leading a life of vagrancy, than are your circumstances,
my brethren, who belong to the middle and upper classes of this
country, removed from the lot of the homeless multitudes who
day by day seek relief in our workhouses. Was it an intellec-
* I Cor. xv. 28. 1 Rom. ix. 21.
b Col. i. 16. These hierarchical distinctions appear to have been pre
served among the fallen angels (Eph. vi. 1 2).
c I Cor. iii. 16, 17; vi. ip», 20. d Rom. xi. 34-36.
e Ecce Homo, p. 49. • ' Acts xxii. 29.
[ LECT.
From what position did Christ condescend? 311
tual eminence1! But the Apostle who had sat at the feet of
Gamaliel, and had drawn largely from the fountains of Greek
thought and culture, had at least enjoyed educational advantages
which were utterly denied to the Prophet of Nazareth. Was it
then a moral eminence? But, if Jesus was merely Man, was He, I
do not say morally perfect, but morally eminent at all? Was not
His Self-assertion such as to be inconsistent with any truthful
recognition whatever of the real conditions of a created exist
ence ? But was the eminence from which Christ condescended
angelical as distinct from human? St. Paul has drawn the sharp
est distinction between Christ and the angels ; Christ is related
to the angels, in the belief of the Apostle, simply as the Author
of their being S ; while the appointed duties of the angels are to
worship His Person and to serve His servants h.
What then was the position from which Christ condescended?
Two stages of condescension are indeed noted, one within and
one beyond the limits of our Lord's Human Life. Being found
in fashion as a Man, He voluntarily humbled Himself and became
obedient unto death*. But the earlier and the greater act of
condescension was that whereby He had become Man out of
a state of pre-existent glory k. St. Paul constantly refers to the
pre-existent Life of Jesus Christ. The Second Adam differs
from the first in that He is ' from heaven V When ancient
Israel was wandering in the desert, Christ had been Him
self invisibly present as Guardian and Sustainer of the Lord's
people111. St. Paul is pleading on behalf of the poor Jewish
Churches with their wealthier Corinthian brethren ; and he
points to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, when He
was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through His
poverty might be rich11. Here Christ's eternal wealth is in
contrast with His temporal impoverishment. For His poverty
began with the manger of Bethlehem ; He became poor by the
■ Reuss, The"ol. Chre"t. ii. 76, note. M. Reuss says that the Catholic inter
pretation of Rom. ix. 5 is ' 1'explication la plus simple et la plus natnrelle.'
' Man hat hier verschiedene Auswege gesucht, der Nothwendigkeit zu entge-
hen, [4] Siv iir) n&tnuv @fts auf Christum zu beziehen ; aber bei jedem bieten
sie solche Schwierigkeiten dar, die immer wieder auf die einfachste und von
der Grammatik gebotene Auslegung zuruckfuhren.' {Usteri, Entwickelnng
des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, p. 309.) That the text was understood in
the early Church to apply to Jesus Christ will appear from St. Iren. iii. 16, 3 ;
Tert. adv. Prax. 13; St. Hipp. c. Noet. 6. So Origen; St. Athan. Orat. c. Ar.
i. 10; Theodoret ; St. Chrys. de Incompr. Dei Nat. v. 2; in Joan. horn, xxxiii.
1; in 1 Cor. hom. xx. 3. It seems probable that any non-employment of so
striking a passage by the Catholics during their earlier controversial struggles
with the Arians is to be attributed to their fear of being charged with con
struing it in a Sabellian sense. (Cf. Olsh. in loc; Reiche, Comm. ii. 268,
note.) The language of the next age was unhesitating: clncv avTbv ' inl
■jravTwv . . . *®tbv' . . . ( evKoyrirbv' . . . exovres oZv rbv Xpitrrbv KaX tvTO. ®ebv
<ca! evKoyTjrby, a!/T$ trpooKvviicrtetitv. St. Procl. ad Arm. (Labbe, iii. 1231.)
Wetstein erroneously assumed that those early fathers who refused to apply
4 eir! TtivTuv &tbs to Christ, would have objected to the predicate actually
employed by the Apostle, &rl mbrw @t6s. (Cf. Fritzsche, Comm. in Rom.
i. p. 262 sqq.) And indeed Socinus himself (see Tholuck in loc.) had no
doubt of the reference of this passage to Christ ; although he explained it of
a conferred, not of a 'natural' Divinity. (Cat. Rac. 159 sqq.) See too Dr.
Vaughan, Comm. in loc. against the 'harsh, evasive and most needless inter
pretation,' which applies it to the Father.
* Observe Rom. i. 3, where iic <nre'p/«aTos KOTtt tifua is in contrast
with Ti'oO ©«o0 . . . Kwrk Uvtvfia 'Ayiucrirris.
VI]
314 Christ is ' over all God blessedfor ever'
to destroy this antithesis outright, and to impoverish the climax
of the whole passage, by cutting off the doxology from the clause
which precedes it, and so erecting it into an independent ascrip
tion of praise to God the Father u. If we should admit that the
doctrine of Christ's Godhead is not stated in this precise form
elsewhere in St. Paul's writings x, that admission cannot be held
" As to the punctuation of this passage the early MSS. themselves of
course determine nothing ; hut the citations and versions to which Lachmann
generally appeals for the formation of his text are decisively in favour of re
ferring i tif to Xpurr6s. The Sabellian use of the text to prove that the Father
became Man, and the orthodox replies shewing that this wa9 not the sense of
the passage, equally assume that the doxological clause refers to Christ.
Nothing can with safety be inferred as to the received reading in the Church
from the general and of course prejudiced statement of the Emperor Julian,
that rbv yovv 'Irjaovv otrre HavKos irdXfirjff^v eiireiv ®f6v. St. Cyril, cont. Jul.
x. init., Op. torn. vi. p. 327. Two cursive MSS. of the twelfth century (5
and 47, cf. Meyer), are the first which distinctly interpose a punctuation after
adpxa, and so erect the following clause into an independent doxology
addressed to God the Father. But the construction which is thus rendered
necessary (1) makes the participle tiv altogether superfluous. In 2 Cor. xi. 31,
i tiv tb\ayrfrhs th tovs mums is an exactly parallel construction to that of
Rom. ix. 5. Nothing but strong anti-theological bias can explain the facility
with which the natural force of the passage is at once recognised in the
former and denied in the latter case (see Prof. Jowett in loc, and Baur, Vor-
lesungen, p. 194, who begs the question,—' Christus ist noch wesentlich
Mensch, nicht Gott'). It need scarcely be added that there is no authority
for transposing b tiv into av 6, in order to evade the natural force of the
participle. (2) The construction which the isolation of the clause renders
necessary violates the invariable usage of Biblical Greek. ' If the Apostle
had wished to express " God, Who is over all, be blessed for ever," he must,
according to the unvarying usage of the New Testament and the LXX.
(which follows the use of TH3), have placed fi\oyr)Tbs first, and written
eiKoyrirbs 6 tiv k.t.A. There are about forty places in the Old Testament
and five in the New in which this formula of doxology occurs, and in every
case the arrangement is the same, " Blessed be the God Who is over all, for
ever." ' (Christ. Rem. April 1856, p. 469.) It may be added that in Ps. lxvii.
19, LXX. (cited by Winer, N. T. Gr. Eng. Tr. p. 573), Kvptos i &ebs ev\o-
•yifTds, evKoyTjrbs Ktipios, the fir3t iv\oyr\rbs has no corresponding word in
the Hebrew text, and appears to be interpolated. Dean Alford observes that
I Kings x. 6 ; 2 Chron. ix. 8 ; Job i. 21; Ps. cxii. 2, are not exceptions ;
* since in all of them the verb tlr) or ycvotro is expressed, requiring the sub
stantive to follow it closely.' We may be very certain that, if M irivraiv
@ebs could be proved to be an unwarranted reading, no scholar, however
Socinianizing his bias, would hesitate to say that 6 tiv tuXoyrirbs K.r.K.
should be referred to the proper name which precedes it.
1 Our Lord is not, we are reminded, called ti\oyT]rbs elsewhere in the
New Testament. But ti\oyrinevos is certainly applied to Him, St. Matt,
xxi. 9 ; St. Luke xix. 28 ; and as regards ev\o*fr\Tbs, the remarkable fewness
of doxologies addressed to Him might account for the omission. The predi
cate could only be refused to Him on the ground of His being, in the belief of
St. Paul, merely a creature. It is arbitrary to maintain that no word can
[LECT.
Christ is 'our great God and Saviour.' 315
to justify us in violently breaking up the passage, in order to
escape from its natural meaning, unless we are prepared to deny
that St. Paul could possibly have employed an ana£ Xtydptvov.
Nor in point of fact does St. Paul say more in this famous text
than when in writing to Titus he describes Christians as ' looking
for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God
and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for usy.' Here the
grammar apparently, and the context certainly, oblige us to
recognise the identity of 'our Saviour Jesus Christ' and 'our
Great God.' As a matter of fact, Christians are not waiting for
any manifestation of the Father. And He Who gave Himself
for us can be none other than our Lord Jesus Christ.
Eeference has already been made to that most solemn passage
in the Epistle to the Philippians, which is read by the Church
0 The Arian gloss upon this text was this : Sti Btbs Sn> ixdrray oi>x %pTra<re
rb chat Xaa Tip 0£<S t<£ nty&htp koX net(ovi. St. Chrysostom comments thus :
Kat /Mtpbs koI fieyas ®ebs tvi ; KaX to 'EWrjyiKa rots tt\s sKKKi\aias ddyfiatrtv
iTretadyeTe ; . . . Et yap ptKpbs, ttus koI 0e<Js ; (Horn. vi. in loc.) The fiopipij
06ou ia apparently the manifested glory of Deity, implying of course the
reality of the Deity so manifested. Compare 8<ffa, St. John xvii. 5. Of this
fiopcpii (as distinct from Deity Itself) our Lord liiivwatv lavrdv. The word
iiripxcv points to our Lord's ' original subsistence' in the splendour of the
Godhead. The expression iv fioptyjj 0«oC virapx^y is virtually equivalent to
rb (hat Xaa 0ey. See Dean Alford's exhaustive note upon this passage.
d Col. i. 15-17. 8 Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4 : 8s lata/ (ik&w tov 0eo£
VI]
318 Christ, ' Begotten before every creature!
man, God's attributes are most luminously exhibited ; man is the
image and glory of God f. But Christ is the Adequate Image
of God, God's Self-reflection in His Own thought, eternally pre
sent with Himself. As the elicav, Christ is the irpwroroKos naaTjs
Kricreas : that is to say, not the First in rank among created
beings, but begotten before any created beings. That this is a
true sense of the expression is etymologically certain s ; but it
is also the only sense which is in real harmony with the relation
in which, according to the context, Christ is said to stand to the
created universe1'. That relation, according to St. Paul, is
threefold. Of all things in earth and heaven, of things seen and
unseen, of the various orders of the angelic hierarchy, of thrones,
of dominions, of principalities, of powers —it is said that they
were created in Christ, by Christ, and for Christ. 'Ec avra,
' I Cor. xi. 7 : eiViix /ml So|a 0coS.
s As i'ik&v here defines our Lord's relation to God the Father, so irpur6-
tokos defines His relation to the creatures. ftoiAcTai 5ei£ai ori irpb irdoyis tj}s
Krlaetos eartv d Tt6s' nuts &v; Sia yewficreus' ovkovv koI twv ayy4\uv irp6-
repos, Kal ovrces, flxrre Kal airrbs cktiow abrois. (Theophyl. in loc.) Christ
is not the first of created spirits ; He exists before them, and as One
'begotten not made.' 'Der genit. Triads ktiVeois ist nicht Genit. partitiv.
(obwohl diess noch de Wette fiir unzweifelhaft halt), weil jraira Kriais nicht
die game SchGpftmg heisst, mithin nicht die Kalegorie oder Gesammtheit
aussagen kann, zu welcher Christus als ihr erstgebornes Individuum gehore :
es heisst, jedwedes Geschopf; vrgl. z. Ttaaa oiKotiofi-i), Eph. ii. ai.), sondern
es ist der Genit. comparat. : der Eretgeborne in Vergleich mit jedem Geschopfe
(s. Bernhardy, p. 139), d. h. eher geboren ah jedes Geschopf. Vrgl.
Bahr z. St. u. Ernesti Ursprung d. Slinde, p. 241. Anders ist das Ver-
haltniss Apoc. i. 5 : irpunoToicos twv vtttpwv, wo twv vtKpaiv die Kategorie
anzeigt, vrgl. itpunmoKos if iroAAoij aH(\(puis (Rom. viii. 29). Unser Genit.
ist ganz zu fassen wie der vergleichende Genit. bei upwros Joh. i. 15, 30 ;
Winer, p. 218 ; Fritzsche ad Rom. ii. p. 421. Das Vergleichungs-Moment
ist das Verhaltniss der Zeit, und zwar in Betreff des Ursprimgs : da aber
letzterer bei jeder K-rlats anders ist als bei Christo, so ist nicht irpiord/cTiirTos
oder irpcoTdirAaffTos gesagt, welches von Christo eine gleiche Art der Entste-
hung wie von der Creatur anzeigen wtirde, sondern ttput6tokos gewahlt,
welches in der Zeitvergleichung des Ursprungs die absonderliche Art der
Entstehung in Betreff Christi anzeigt, dass er namlich von Gott nicht
geschaffen sei, wie die anderen Wesen, bei denen diess in der Benennung
kt'htis liegt, sondern geboren, aus dem Wesen Gottes gleichartig hervorge-
gangen. Richtig Theodoret : ovx is a&eXtp^v exuv r%v kt'ktiv, a\\' ais
irpb m£<T7js Krlatas yfvvriBfis. Wortwidrig ist daher die ArianiscJie Erkla-
rung, dass Christus als das erste Gesch'opf Gottes bezeichnet werde.' Meyer,
Kolosserbrief, p. 184.
h Schleiermacher's desire to apply to the new creation, what is here said
of the natural, is alluded to by Auberlen as an illustration of his tendency
' to expound the Bible by the verdict of his devout consciousness, instead of
permitting his consciousness to be regulated by the Bible.' On the Divine
Revelation, pt. 2. iv. 2. a. -. ^• •
[lect.
Christ, the Author and the End of created life. 319
iKTtadr) .... 84' avrov, (ecu fit avrbv iKTiarai K In Him. There
was no creative process external to and independent of Him ;
since the archetypal forms after which the creatures are modelled,
and the sources of their strength and consistency of being, eter
nally reside in Him K By Him. The force which has sum
moned the worlds out of nothingness into being, and which
upholds them in being, is His ; He wields it ; He is the One
Producer and Sustainer of all created existence. For Him.
He is not, as Arianism afterwards pretended, merely an inferior
workman, creating for the glory of a higher Master, for a God
superior to Himself. He creates for Himself ; He is the End of
created things as well as their immediate Source ; and in living
for Him every creature finds at once the explanation and the
law of its being. For ' He is before all things, and by Him all
things consist1.' After such a statement it follows naturally
that the irAqpayta, that is to say, the entire cycle of the
Divine attributes, considered as a series of powers or forces,
dwells in Jesus Christ ; and this, not in any merely ideal or
transcendental manner, but with that actual reality which men
attach to the presence of material bodies which they can feel
and measure through the organs of sense. 'Ev airä «n-oim näv tö
1 Compare Rom. xi. 36 : aÜToü Kai Si avrov ko! eis ahrbv tci rtivra.
As in this passage the Apostle is speaking of God, without hinting at any
distinction of Persons within the Godhead, he writes i£ avrov, not tv oüry.
The Eternal Father is the ultimate Source of all life, both intra and extra
Deum; while the production of created beings depends immediately upon
the Son. The other two prepositions—the last being theologically of most
import—correspond in the two passages.
k «VriaOij describes the act of creation ; tienareu points to creation as
a completed and enduring fact. In iv airy, the preposition signifies that
' in Christo beruhete (ursachlich) der Act der Schöpfung, so dass die Vollzie
hung derselben in Seinen Person begründet war, und ohne ihn nicht
geschehen wäre.' Cf. St. John i. 3 : xwP's avrov iyivtro oi/Se eV, b ytyovev.
But although the preposition immediately expresses the dependence of
created life upon Christ as its cause, it hints at the reason of this depend
ence, namely, that our Divine Lord is the causa exemplaris of creation, the
k6o-/xos voirrbs, the Archetype of all created things, ' die Dinge ihrer Idee
nach, Selbst, er trägt ihre Wesenheit in sich.' (Olshausen in loc.)
1 Col. i. 1 7 : Kai avrSs lan trpb ifdvrotv, Kol tc\ ttdvra iv ainip o-vvearnKC.
Meyer in loc. ' Und Er (Er eben), durch welchen und für welchen tA
•jrdvra %Kriarai, hat eine frühere Existenz als Alles, und das Sämmtliche
besteht in ihm irpb irivrav wie TtfmriroKO% von der Zeit, nicht vom
Range ; wiederholt und nachdrücklich betont wird von P. die Präexistenz
Christi. Statt «Vti hatte er fiv sagen können (Joh. i. 1) ; jenes aber ist
gesagt, weil Er die Permanenz des Seins Christi im Auge hat und darstellt,
nicht aber historisch über ihn berichten will, was nur in den Hülfssätzen
mit S-n vers. 16. u. 19. geschieht.' Cf. St. John viii. 58.
320 Christ's Divinity in Heb. i. 5-14.
it\i]pa>jia rrjs (JedrrjTOS aafiariKois m. Although throughout this
Epistle the word Xdyor is never introduced, it is plain that the
eixcav of St. Paul is equivalent in His rank and functions to the
\6yos of St. John. Each exists prior to creation ; each is the
one Agent in creation ; each is a Divine Person ; each is equal
with God and shares His essential Life ; each is really none
other than God.
Indeed with this passage in the Colossians only two others
in the entire compass of the New Testament, can, on the whole,
be compared. Allusion has already been made to the prologue
of St. John's Gospel ; and it is no less obvious to refer to the
opening chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Most of those
writers who earnestly reject the Pauline authorship of that
Epistle admit that it is of primary canonical authority, and
assign to its author the highest place of honour in ' the school
of St. Paul.' There are reasons for believing that, at the utmost,
it is not more distantly related to his mind than is the Gospel of
St. Luke ; if indeed it does not furnish a crowning instance of
the spiritual versatility of the great Apostle, addressing himself
to a set of circumstances unlike any other of which the records
of his ministry have given us information. Throughout the
Epistle to the Hebrews a comparison is instituted between
Christianity and Judaism ; and this comparison turns partly on
the spiritual advantages which belong to the two systems respec
tively, and partly on the relative dignity of the persons who
represent the two dispensations, and who mediate accordingly,
in whatever senses, between God and humanity. Thus our
Incarnate Lord as the one great High-priest is contrasted with
Aaron n and his successors. Thus too as the one perfect Re-
vealer of God, He is compared with Moses0 and the Jewish
m Col. ii. 9 : irav rh irhfyuiia.. Meyer in loc. ' Wird durch T7js 9«i(tjjtoi
naher bestimmt, welches angiebt, was seiner ganzen Fiille nacb, d. i. nicbt
etwa bios theilweise, sondern in seiner Gesammtheit, in Christo wohne
fi 6t6T7]s die Gottheit (Lucian, Icarom. 9; Plut. Mor. p. 415, C.) das
Abstractum von i @(6s, ist zu unterscheiden von fi 8ei6n)s dem Abstractum
von fleioj (Rom. i. 20 ; Sap. zviii. 9 ; Lucian de Calumn. 1 7). Jenes ist
Deltas, dot Gottsein, d. i. die gottliche Wesenheit, Gottheit ; dieses aber
die Divinitas, d. i. die gottliche Qualitat, Gbttlichkeit.' See too Abp.
Trench, Syn. N. T. i. p. 8. Thus in this passage the irAJipw/xa must be
understood in the metaphysical sense of the Divine Essence, even if in
Col. i. 19 it is referred to the fulness of Divine grace. Contrast too the
permanent fact involved in the present xaroiKei of the one passage with
the historical aorist eiiSotoiae of the other,
» Heb. v. 4 ; x. 11. 0 Ibid. iii. 1-6.
[ LECT.
Christ obeyed and worshipped by the Angels. 321
prophets. As the antitype of Melchisedec, Christ is a higher
Priest than Aaron P; as a Son reigning over the house of God,
Christ is a greater Euler than the legislator whose praise it was
that he had been a faithful servant Q. As Author of a final,
complete, and unique revelation, Christ stands altogether above
the prophets by whom God had revealed His Mind in many
modes and in many fragments, in revelations very various as to
their forms, and, at certain epochs, almost incessant in their
occurrence r. But if the superiority of Christianity to Judaism
was to be completely established, a further comparison was
necessary. The later Jewish theologians had laid much stress
upon the delivery of the Sinaitic Law through the agency
of angels acting as delegates for the Most High God9. The
Author of Christianity might be superior to Moses and the
prophets, but could He challenge comparison with those pure
and mighty spirits compared with whom the greatest of the
sons of Israel, as beings of flesh and blood, were insignificant
and sinful 1 The answer is, that if Christ is not the peer of the
angels, this is because He is their Lord and Master. The angels
are ministers of the Divine Will ; they are engaged in stated
services enjoined on them towards creatures lower than them
selves, yet redeemed by Christ *. But He, in His glory above
the heavens, is invested with attributes to which the highest
angel could never pretend. In His crucified but now enthroned
Humanity, He is seated at the right hand of the Majesty on
high u ; He is seated there, as being Heir of all things x ;
k Heb. i. 13 : irpbs r'tva Hi tuv ayytXwv eXprjKe Tore, 'Kddov iic Sf^iwy ftov1
€£i)s &p 8(0 robs 4x^pois ffov {tnoirdStov tSjv iroiuf aov ;*
1 Ibid. iii. 2 : iriarbv ivra. r$ iroiijGavTi hvt6v.
m Ibid. ii. 14, 18, iv. 15 ; v. 7.
VI] T2
324 Christology of St. Paul's Missionary Sermons,
warping, mutilating, degrading his whole recorded mind. Par
ticular texts, when duly isolated from the Apostle's general
teaching, may be pressed with plausible effect into the service
of Arian or Humanitarian theories ; but take St. Paul's doctrine
as a whole, and it must be admitted to centre in One Who
is at once and truly God as well as Man.
St. Paul never speaks of Jesus Christ as a pupil of less
originality and genius might speak of a master in moral truth,
whose ideas he was recommending, expanding, defining, defend
ing, popularizing, among the men of a later generation. St. Paul
never professes to be working on the common level of human
power and knowledge with a master from whom he differed, as
an inferior teacher might differ, only in the degree of his capacity
and authority. St. Paul always writes and speaks as becomes
the slave of Jesus. He is indeed a most willing and enthusiastic
slave, reverently gathering up and passionately enforcing all
that touches the work and glory of that Divine Master to Whom
he has freely consecrated his liberty and his life.
In St. Paul's earliest sermons, we do not find the moral
precepts of Jesus a more prominent element than the glories
of His Person and of His redemptive work. That the reverse
is the case is at once apparent from a study of the great dis
course which was pronounced in the synagogue of the Pisidian
Antioch. The past history of Israel is first summarized from a
point of view which regards it as purely preparatory to the
manifestation of the anticipated Saviour 11 ; and then the true
Messiahship of Jesus is enforced by an appeal to the testimony
of John the Baptist0, to the correspondence of the circumstances
of Christ's Death with the prophetic announcements p, and to
the historical fact of His Resurrection from the grave «, which
had been witnessed by the apostles as distinctly r as it had been
foretold by the prophets 8. Thus the Apostle reaches his prac
tical conclusion. To believe in Jesus Christ is the one condition
of receiving remission of sins and (how strangely must such
words have sounded in Jewish ears !) justification from all
things from which men could not be justified by the divinely-
given law of Moses *. To deny Jesus Christ is to incur those
penalties which the Hebrew Scriptures denounced against scornful
11 Acts xiii. 17-23. <• Ibid. vers. 24, 25. P Ibid. vers. 26-30.
4 Ibid. ver. 30. * Ibid. ver. 31. • Ibid. vers. 32-37.
* Ibid. vers. 38, 39 : Sta rovrov vfiiv &<ptois afiapriSov KarayyeWeTcu' KaX
otto irdyruv Ziv ovk tj5uv^tjt6 ec T(p y6fj.cp Moxrectf? SitcaiwQrjvai, £v tovtu was
6 irtoretW SiKaiouTai.
[LECT.
Discourses at Antioch, Athens, and Miletus. 325
indifference to the voice of God and to the present tokens of
His Love and Power u.
At first sight, St. Paul's sermon from the steps of the Areo
pagus might seem to be rather Theistic than Christian. St. Paul
had to gain the ear of a ' philosophical' audience which imagined
that 'Jesus and the Resurrection' were two 'strange demons31,'
who might presently be added to the stock of deities already
venerated by the Athenian populace. St. Paul is therefore eager
to set forth the lofty spirituality of the God of Christendom ;
but, although he insists chiefly on those Divine attributes which
are observable in nature and Providence, his sermon ends with
Jesus. After shewing what God is in Himself y, and what are
the natural relations which subsist between God and mankind z,
St. Paul touches the conscience of his Athenian audience by a
sharp denunciation of the vulgar idolatry which it despised a, and
he calls men to repent by a reference to the coming judgment,
which conscience itself foreshadowed. But the certainty of that
judgment has been attested by the historical fact of the resurrec
tion of Jesus ; the risen Jesus is the future Judge b.
Or, listen to St. Paul as with fatherly authority and tender
ness he is taking his leave of his fellow-labourers in Christ, the
presbyters of Ephesus, on the strand of Miletus. Here the
Apostle's address moves incessantly round the Person of Jesus.
He protests that to lead men to repentance towards God and
faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ0, had been the single object
of his public and private ministrations at Ephesus. He counts
not his life dear to himself, if only he can complete the mission
which is so precious to him because he has received it from the
Lord Jesus d. The presbyters are bidden to 'shepherd the
Church of God which He has purchased with His Own Blood6
■ Acts xiii. 40 : jBAe'ireT* oZv iire\iy lip' i/tus rb tlpyfiivov iv rots
irpo<pi)rais' '"I5€Te, ol KaratppovTiral, Kal Bavfiia-art teal a<po.vio-dyyrt' on epyov
iyk 4pyd£o/xcu iv reus Tjficpais vfi&v.1 Hab. i. 5.
x Acts xvii. 18 : £ivuv Soi/ucW Soicti /caTayyf\ftn flvtu.
1 Ibid. vers. 24, 25. 1 Ibid. vers. 26-28.
a Ibid. vers. 29, 30. b Ibid. ver. 31.
0 Ibid. xx. 2 1 : Sianaprvpd/ifvos .... rf]V eij rbv ®tbv fitTivoiav, ku\ iriaTiv
T^f els Tbv Kvpiov Tjfjtuy 'Iriaovv Xpun6v.
d Ibid. ver. 24.
• Ibid. ver. 28 : noiiialvtiv tV lKK\t)trlai> rov 0coC [Kvpiov, Tisch. al.] %v
■nepi(i!oii]<ra.TO Sia toS a'luaros rov ISiov. See Dr. Wordsworth's note in loc.
In the third edition of his Greek Testament, Dean Alford restored the
reading rov @€ov, which he had abandoned for Kvpiov in the two former
editions. Nothing can be added to the argument of the note in his fifth
edition. For Kvpiov are A, C, D, E ; for ®eov, B, », Syr., Vulg.
VI] .
326 Christology of St. Paul's apologetic speeches.
and the Apostle concludes by quoting a saying of the Lord
Jesus which has not been recorded in the Gospels, but which
was then reverently treasured in the Church, to the effect that
' it is more blessed to give than to receive f.'
In the two apologetic discourses delivered, the one from the
stairs of the tower of Antonia before the angry multitude, and
the other in the council-chamber at Csesarea before King
Agrippa II. of Chalcis, St. Paul justifies his missionary activity
by dwelling upon the circumstances which accompanied and
immediately followed his conversion. Everything had turned
upon a fact which the Apostle abundantly insists upon ;—he
had received a revelation of Jesus Christ in His heavenly glory.
It was Jesus Who had spoken to St. Paul from heaven g ; it was
Jesus Who had revealed Himself as persecuted in His suffering
Church h ; it was to Jesus that St. Paul had surrendered his
moral liberty ' ; it was from Jesus that he had received specific
orders to go into Damascus k ; Jesus had commissioned him to
be a minister and witness both of what he had seen, and of the
truths which were yet to be disclosed to him 1 ; it was by
Jesus that he was sent both to Jews and Gentiles, 'to open
their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from
the power of Satan unto God, that,' continued the Heavenly
Speaker, ' they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance
among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me m.' It
was Jesus Who had appeared to St. Paul when he was in an
ecstasy in the Temple, had bidden him leave Jerusalem suddenly,
and had sent him to the Gentiles0. The revelation of Jesus had
been emphatically the turning-point of the Apostle's life ; it had
first determined the direction and had then quickened the
intensity of his action. He could plead with truth before Agrippa
that he had not been disobedient unto the heavenly vision °.
But who can fail to see that the Lord Who in His glorified
Manhood thus speaks to His servant from the skies, and Who
is withal revealed to him in the very centre of his soul P, is no
f Acts xx. 35 : (xvyfiovefeiv re ruv \6ytav rov Kupiov 'Itjitov, otl abrbs elre'
' MaKdpi6v tort paWov StSovai % \afif3dvetv.'
b Ibid. xxii. 7 ; xxvi. 14. h Ibid. xxii. 8 ; xxvi. 15. 1 Ibid. xxii. 10.
k Ibid. 1 Ibid. xxvi. 1 6. m Ibid. vers. 17, 18.
n Ibid. xxii. 1 7 : tytvero vpoo-euxopevov fiov 4v t$j Up$, yeveodai
fie eV tKardirei, koI iSety abrbv Keyovrd fioi, SireCow Kal e£eA0€ iv Tti^et c|
'l6pou<ra\^|U. Ibid. ver. 21 : els IBftj nnHphv eJcrawTeAtD <re.
0 Ibid. xxvi. 19: ovk 4yev6fir)v ajreif^y tj? ovpaviq 07rTa<ncc.
P Gal. i. 15, 16 : tvd6K7j(ret> 6 ©ebs .... avoKaktycu rby Tlbv avrov tv 4fioL
[ LECT.
St. Paul teaches Christ's Deity implicitly. 327
created being, is neither saint nor seraph, but in very truth, the
Master of consciences, the Monarch Who penetrates, inhabits,
and rules the secret life of spirits, the King Who claims the
fealty and Who orders the ways of men %
St. Paul's popular teaching then is emphatically a ' preaching
of Jesus Christ 1.' Our Lord is always the Apostle's theme ;
but the degree in which His Divine glory is unveiled varies with
the capacities of the Jewish or heathen listeners for bearing the
great discovery. The doctrine is distributed, if we may so speak,
in a like varying manner over the whole text of St. Paul's
Epistles. It lies in those greetings1 by which the Apostle
associates Jesus Christ with God the Father, as being the source
no less than the channel of the highest spiritual blessings. , It is
pointedly asserted when the Galatians are warned that St. Paul
is ' an Apostle not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ
and God the Father 8.' It is implied in the benedictions which
the Apostle pronounces in the Name of Christ without naming
the Name of God *. It underlies those early apostolical hymns,
sung, as it would seem, in the Kedeemer's honour u ; it justifies
P 2 Cor. xii. 7-9 : IZ6&T) fxoi ffK6\o^ tj? craptcl .... vnep to6tov rpif rbv
Kvpwv 7rapcKoA6(ro, 'Iva oirodTp air' tfiov' leal elprfKe fioi, 1 'Apfcel croi r) x^-PiS
fiov 7j yap Suvafiis fiov 4v affOeveia T€\eiovrai' f}8t<TTa oZv fxaWov Kavx'ficro/xai
4v rats avdevelats fJLOv, Xva iirtaKriy^trri in* 4fxi r) StWjUi? rod Xpiarov.
9 I Cor. i. 30 : bs lyevi)9Ti r)/xiv <ro<pla curb 0eoC, SiKatorrvvT] re koI aytatrfibs
Kal airoKvrpwtrts.
T Ibid. ii. 8 : ei yap tyvmaav, ouk av rbv Kdpiov rr)s S6^jjs larabpwaav.
■ Ibid. xvi. 22 : tX ris ov <pi\ei rbv Kvptov 'Irfffovv Xpiarbv, r)rw avaOi^a,
napav c\9i. ' Ibid. ver. 13. " 2 Cor. xiii. 13.
VI]
332 Implied Christology of the Epistles
prominence which is inconsistent with serious loyalty to mono
theistic truth.
Still more remarkably do the Epistles of the First Imprison
ment present us with a picture of our Lord's Work and Person
which absolutely presupposes, even where it does not in terms
assert, the doctrine of His Divinity. The Epistles to the Ephe--
sians and the Colossians are even more intimately related to
each other than are those to the Romans and the Galatians. They
deal with the same lines of truth ; they differ only in method
of treatment. That to the Ephesians is devotional and expository ;
that to the Colossians is polemical. In the Colossians the dignity
of Christ's Person is put forward most explicitly as against the
speculations of a Judaizing theosopliy which degraded Christ
to the rank of an archangel x, and which recommended, as a
substitute for Christ's redemptive work, ascetic observances,
grounded on a trust in the cleansing and hallowing properties
and powers of nature y. In the Epistle to the Ephesians our
Lord's Personal dignity is asserted more indirectly. It is
implied in His reconciliation of Jews and heathens to each
other and to God, and still more in His relationship to the pre
destination of the saints z. In both Epistles we encounter two
prominent lines of thought, each, in a high degree, pointing to
Christ's Divine dignity. The first, the absolute character of
the Christian faith as contrasted with the relative character of
1 Baur, Vorlesungen, p. 374: 'Die im Colosserbrief gemeinten Engels
verehrer setzten ohne Zweifel Christus selbst in die Classe der Engel, als
%na twv apxaYye\av, wie diess Epiphanius als einen Lehrsatz der Ebioniten
angibt, wogegen der Colosserbrief mit allem Nachdruck auf ein solches Kpareiv
tt)v Kc<pa\iiv dringt, dass alles, was nicht das Haupt seilst ist, nur in einem
absoluten Abhängigkeits-verhältniss zu Ihm stehend gedacht wird, ii. 19.'
* Ibid. 'Eine Lehre, welche den Menschen in religiöser Hinsicht von
seinem natürlichen bürgerlichen Sein, von der materiellen Natur abhängig
machte, und sein religiöses Heil durch die reinigende und heiligende Kraft,
die man den Elementen und Substanzen der Welt zuschrieb, den Einfluss
der Himmels-cörper, das natürlich Reine im Unterschied von dem für unrein
Gehaltenen vermittelt werden Hess, setzte die aroix*«* to5 koV/uou an dieselbe
Stelle, welche nur Christus als Erlöser haben sollte. In diesem Sinne werden
V. 8 die (TTo»xe'a T0" nStTfLov und Christus einander gegenübergestellt. Das
ist die Philosophie in dem Sinne in welchem das Wesen der Philosophie als
Weltweisheit bezeichnet wird, als die Wissenschaft, die es mit den crrotxeTa
tov x6aiiov zu thun hat. Als solche ist sie auch nur eine Kevij atrirn, eine
blosse irapdSoais toiv avBpi/t-rrtov.'
' Ibid. p. 270 : ' Der transcendenten Christologie dieser Briefe und ihrer
darauf beruhenden Anschauung von dem alles umfassenden und über alles
übergreifenden Charakter des Christenthums ist es ganz gemäss, dass sie in
der Lehre von der Beseligung der Menschen auf eine überzeitliche Vorher
bestimmung zurückgehen, Eph. i. 4, f.'
[lect.
of the First Imprisonment. 333
heathenism and Judaism a ; the second, the re-creative power
of the grace of Christ b. In both Epistles the Church is con
sidered as a vast spiritual society c which, besides embracing as
its heritage all races of the world, pierces the veil of the unseen,
and includes the families of heaven d in its majestic compass.
Of this society Christ is the Head e, and it is ' His Body, the
fulness of Him That filleth all in all.' Christ is the predestined
point of unity in which earth and heaven, Jew and Gentile,
meet and are one f. Christ's Death is the triumph of peace in
the spiritual world. Peace with God is secured through the
taking away of the law of condemnation by the dying Christ,
Who nails it to His Cross and openly triumphs over the powers
of darkness?. Peace among men is secured, because the Cross
is the centre of the regenerated world, as of the moral universe \
Divided races, religions, nationalities, classes, meet beneath the
Cross ; they embrace as brethren ; they are fused into one vast
society which is held together by an Indwelling Presence, re
flected in the general sense of boundless indebtedness to a
transcendent Love5. Hence in these Epistles such marked
a Baur, Vorlesungen, p. 273 : ' So ist . . . auch die absolute Erhabenheit
des Christenthums fiber Judenthum und Heidenthum ausgesprochen. Beide
verhalten sich gleich negativ (but by no means in the same degree) zum Chris-
tenthum, das ihnen gegenuber S \6yos rrjs d\i)fle(oj ist Eph. i. 13, oder <pas
im Gegensatz von ok&tos (v. 8). Die Juden und die Heiden waren wegen der
allgemeinen Sundhaftigkeit dem gottliehen Zorn verfallen, Eph. ii. 3. Der
religiose Charakter des Heidenthums wird noch besonders dadurch bezeichnet,
dass die Heiden &6eoi iv Tip k6o~h<p sind (ii. 12), iffKoraifxivot t$ Siavoia oWes
(iv. 18), airri\Korpiojfj.evoi ttjs £g>7JS tov &eov ?ita t^v ayvoiav t))V oZaav iv
avrois (iv. 18), •jrepiirarovvTes Kara tov aloiva tov K6trfjLov tovtov Kara rbv
Hpxovra ""Is Qovo-tas tov iepos (ii. 2). Beiden Religionen gegenfiber ist das
Christenthum die absolute Religion. Der absolute Charakter dee Christen
thums selbst aber ist bedingt durch die Person Christi.'
b Col. iii. 9; Eph. iv. 21 sqq.; cf. Ibid. ii. 8-10. Baur, Vorlesungen,
p. 270 : ' Die Gnade ist das den Menscheh durch den Glauben an Christus
neu schaffende Prineip. Etwas Neues muss namlich der Mensch durch
das Christenthum werden.'
c Col. i. 5, 6 : rov euayyeAlov, tov vapSvros els vpas, Ka8iis Kal iv travrl
t§ Kdfffjup, Kal Hart Kaptrotpopov/xevov. Eph. i. 13. d Eph. iii. 15.
e Eph. i. 22, 23 : auToi* eSuKe Ke(pa\^}V virep iravra ttj e/CK/VTjo'/a, fins iffTL
TO owfia avTov, rb irA^poj^a tov iravTa iv ira<ri ir\ripovuevov. v. 30.
f Ibid. ver. 10 : avaKetpaXaitiiaaaBai to wdvTa iv Tip Xoicttoj, to" re iv rots
ovpavols Kal tb inl ttjs t^s* iv aoTip, iv q: Kal iKArjpwOrifiev.
8 Col. ii. 14, 15.
11 Col. i. 20, 21: 01 avTov aTroKaraWd^ai ra irdvra els avrbv, elp7]vonoi-fi<ras
5ia tov a'lfiaTOS tov (FTavpov aOTOu, Si' outou, eXre Ta iirl tt)s yrjs, eire ra iv
Tots ovpavois.
1 Ibid. iii. II : ovk evi^EWvv Kal 'IouSaios, irepirofx}} Kal aKpo&vtn!a, frdp-
&apos} ^kv&vs, SuvKoSj iAevBcpos' aKAa ra irdvra Kal iv iraai Xpiards. Ob
VI]
334 Implied Christology of the Epistles
emphasis is laid upon the unity of the Body of Christ k ; since
the reunion of moral beings shews forth Christ's Personal Glory.
Christ is the Unifier. As Christ in His Passion is the Combiner
and Eeconciler of all things in earth and heaven ; so He ascends
to heaven, He descends to hell on His errand of reconciliation
and combination \ He institutes the hierarchy of the Church m ;
He is the Root from which her life springs, the Foundation on
which her superstructure rests n ; He is the quickening, organ
izing, Catholicizing Principle within her °. The closest of natural
ties is the chosen symbol of His relation to her; she is His
bride. For her, in His love, He gave Himself to death, that
He might sanctify her by the cleansing virtue of His baptism,
and might so present her to Himself, her Lord,—blameless,
serve the moral inferences in vers. 12-14, the measure of charity being
xaS&s Kai i Xpiarbs ixapiaaro v/iiv. Especially Jews and Gentiles are re
conciled beneath the Cross, because the Cross cancelled the obligatoriness of
the ceremonial law. Eph. ii. 14-17 : avrbs ydp iariv j\ e\pi\vn rinäv, S iroi^ircts
ra afi<p6repa %v, Kal rb fieoSrotxov rod <ppay/xov \vffas, rijv ex^pav iv tj? aapxl
auTou, rbv vSfxov rwv ivroKwv iv S6yfia(ri, Karapyfjffas' 'Iva robs ovo Kriari iv
iavr$ eis eVa Kaivbv dvßpwvov, rcomv f\p4\vr\v, Kal anoKaraWd^rj robs ap.<poripovs
iv evl a&fiari rw 0e^j Sib. rod trraupov, diroKreivas r^v ^x^Pav ^v abrol.
* Baur, Christenthum, p. 119 : ' Die Einheit ist das eigentliche Wesen der
Kirche, diese Einheit ist mit allen zu ihr gehörenden Momenten durch das
Christenthum gegeben, es ist Ein Leib, Ein Geist, Ein Herr, Ein Glaube, Eine
Taufe u. s. w. Eph. iv. 4, f. ... . Von diesem Punkte aus steigt die Anschauung
höher hinauf, bis dahin, wo der Grund aller Einheit liegt. Die einigende,
eine allgemeine Gemeinschaft stiftende Kraft des Todes Christi lässt sich nur
daraus begreifen, dass Christus überhaupt der alles tragende und zusam
menhaltende Centraipunkte des ganzen Universums ist Die Christologie
der Beiden Briefe hängt aufs Innigste zusammen mit dem in der unmittel
baren Gegenwart gegebenen Bedürfniss der Einigung in der Idee der Einen,
alle Unterschiede und Gegensätze in sich aufhebenden Kirche. Es ist, wenn
wir uns in die Anschauungsweise dieser Briefe hineinversetzen, schon ein
acht kathoUsches Bewusstsein das sich in ihnen ausspricht.' This may be
fully admitted without accepting Baur's conclusions as to the date and
authorship of the two Epistles.
1 Eph. iv. 10 : 6 xaraßas, airr6s iffn Kol 6 avaßas virepdvco -ndvruv rwv
obpavwv, Iva v\np(ioy ra ndvra.
m Ibid. vers. 11-13 : Kal abrbs ISuice robs p*v &mar6\ovs, robs 8e npo-
ip^ras, robs 5e evayyeXtaras, robs 8e iroifxivas Kol 5i8ao-icd\ovs, irpbs rbv
Karaprirr^ibv ruv aylaiv, els fpyov StaKovias, els oiKoBo/xijv rov a&fiaros rov
Xpiarov' fiixP1 Karavr-fio-oifiev ol rrdvres els r^jv iv6rnra rrjs irlareus Kal
rijs iirtyvdoffeais rov Tiov rov 0eou, eis avSpa reKeiov, eis /xirpov fj\iKias rov
vKnpt&fiaros rov Xpitrrov.
n Col. ii. 7 : ipptfapevoi Kal itroiKob'ou.oviLtvoi iv avT$.
0 Eph. iv. 15, 16 : b Xpiffrbs, i% ov irav rb ou/pa trvvap/jLoXoyobv-evov Kol
o~v[ißißa£6uevov 5ia rtdirns a<prjs rrjs iirixopvytas, Kar ivipyeiav iv fiirptp
ivbs cKuarov fiipovs, r))v aüfaviv rov vtlifxaros iroiurai eis oiKob'ofi-ijv iavrov
iv aydrn. Col. ii. 19.
[lect.
of the First Imprisonment. 335
immaculate, glorious p. And thus He is the Standard of per
fection with which she must struggle to correspond. Her mem
bers must grow up unto Him in all things. Accordingly, not
to mention the great passage, already referred to, in the Epistle
to the Colossians, Jesus Christ is said in that Epistle to possess
the intellectual as well as the other attributes of Deity Q. In
the allusions to the Three Most Holy Persons, which so remark
ably underlie the structure and surface-thought of the Epistle
to the Ephesians, Jesus Christ is associated most significantly
with the Father and the Spirit1-. He is the Invisible King,
Whose slaves Christians are, and Whose Will is to be obeyed s.
The kingdom of God is His kingdom * ; the Church is subject
to Himu. He is the Object of Christian study, and of Christian
hope*. In the Epistle to the Philippians it is expressly said
that all created beings in heaven, on earth, and in hell, when
His triumph is complete, shall acknowledge the majesty even of
His Human Nature y. The preaching of the Gospel is described
as the preaching Christ z. Death is a blessing for the Christian,
since by death he gains the eternal presence of Christ a. The
Philippians are specially privileged in being permitted, not
merely to believe on Christ, but to suffer for Him The Apostle
P Eph. v. 25-27 I & Xpiffrbs iiydirritre t^v iKK\r}o-iav, kcu iavrbv irapiSuKfv
{nrep ainr)s' Xva ai/TrjV ayi&trT], Kadap'to~as to} \ovrp$ tov USaros iv p'-fjpaTt,
irapatTTTiffTj avrrjv eauTtp %vbo£ov, tt}v iKK\-rio~io.v, pA] txovaap 0"lrt\ov r) fivrlda
t) ti tuv toiovtwv, aU' %va p ayia kcu &p.e>pLos.
i Col. ii. 3 : iv ip eitrl trdvTes ol 07jaavpol rrjs trotpias icdl tt)s yvtiffeus
aTriicpvQoi. Ibid. i. 19, ii. 9.
' Eph. i. 3 : IIotJip toS Kvplov. Ibid. ver. 6 : iv tQ iryamifiiytp. Ibid,
ver. 13 : io-fppaylodriTe to} Tlvtvfiovrt. Ibid. ii. 18 : 5i* avrov txop*v tt)v irpoa-
ayaryfyv oi 6\fnp6repoL iv cvl TlvevpaTi vpbs rbv TlcWtpa. Ibid. iii. 6 : trvy-
K\T)p6vopa, ical aiaaup-a, ko! ffvp.ptfToxa, where the Father Whose heirs we
are, the Son of Whose Body we are members, the Spirit of Whose gifts we
partake, seem to be glanced at by the adjectives denoting our relationship
to the fTroyyeA/o. Cf. Ibid. iii. 14-17.
* Ibid. vi. 6 : firi kbt' 6tp8a\p.o8ov\eiav ws avBpanrdpeo-Koi, a\\' us 5ov\oi
tov Xpurrov.
* Ibid. v. 5 : iv vrj HaaiXila tov XpiOTOv Kol OeoC. Col. i. 13 : Trjv 0a-
tri\etav tov Ttov Tr)s 6\yo\tn\s oJjtov.
u Eph. v. 24 : ti iKK\7io-ta uiroTaWerat Ttp XptGT$.
% Ibid. iv. 20 ; i. 12.
» Phil. ii. 10: Ira iv to} ov6pari 'Vt\o~ov irav yivv Kd/i\fqi iirovpavluv xal
inyeluv ko.1 KaTaxtoviav. Cf. St. Cyril Alex. Thes. p. 128.
x Ibid. i. 16: Tbv XpitTTbv KcnayyiWovaiv. Ibid. ver. 18: Xpitrrbs Kovray-
yiWertu.
* Ibid. ver. 23 : intOvpiav %xav €'s T0 avaAOirai, ko} ovv Xpuntp tlvai.
b Ibid. ver. 29 : 6p.iv ixaplodn Tb fiirip Xpiarov, oi p\6vov Tb tls airrbv iriff-
Ttietv, aAA& Kal t4 ivlp avrov ir&ax*tv.
VI]
336 Implied Christology of the
trusts in Jesus Christ that it will be possible to send Timothy
to Philippic He contrasts the selfishness of ordinary Chris
tians with a disinterestedness that seeks the things (it is not
said of God, but) of Christ d. The Christian 'boast' or 'glory'
centres in Christ, as did the Jewish in the Law 6 ; the Apostle
had counted all his Jewish privileges as dung that he might win
Christ f ; Christ strengthens him to do all things s ; Christ will
one day change this body of our humiliation, that it may become
of like form with the Body of His glory, according to the energy
of His ability even to subdue all things unto Himself \ In this
Epistle, as in those to the Corinthians, the Apostle is far from
pursuing any one line of doctrinal statement : moral exhor
tations, interspersed with allusions to persons and matters of
interest to himself and to the Philippians, constitute the staple
of his letter. And yet how constant are the references to Jesus
Christ, and how inconsistent are they, taken as a whole, with
any conception of His Person which denies His Divinity !
The Pastoral Epistles are distinguished, not merely by the
specific directions which they contain respecting the Christian
hierarchy and religious societies in the apostolical Church i,
but also and especially by the stress which they lay upon the
vital distinction between heresy and orthodoxy k. Each of these
c Phil. ii. 19 : lKnl£w 8e \v Kvplqi 'IijffoC, Tifi66eov tclx*<*>s irefityat vfuv.
4 Ibid. ver. 21 : ol irthrcs yb.p t& eavrwv fyrovatv, oh rh tov XptoTov
e Ibid. iii. 3 : kovx&imvoi tv Xpurry 'Irjtrov.
' Ibid. ver. 8 : Si' ov tA w&vra Ifafiuifhiv nal fiyov/icu <rxiffa\a elvat, Iva
Ttptffrbv Keptifoatj Kal cuptBa iv avT$.
8 Ibid. iv. 13 : vdvra Iffxvu iv t£ ivtvvafiovvrl fie "KpiffrQ.
h Ibid. iii. 2 1 : hs jU€Ta<rx'7M0[Tf<ret T^ tr&na ttjs raveivtiaeas yfitov, els rb
yevtoQai avTb o-6fjL/xop<pov tw adfiaTt ttJs S6^tjs airrov, Kvrb. ripf ivepyetav tov
Svvatrdai aiiTbv Ka\ virord^ai eavrqi rh irdvra.
i I Tim. iii. iv. v. ; Tit. i. 5-9 ; ii. 1-10, Stc.
k St. Paul's language implies that the true faith is to the soul what the
most necessary conditions of health are to the body, vyialvovaa SiSaaKaX'ia
(l Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 9; ii. 1); so \6yos vyiiis (Tit. ii. 8), \6yot uyiaivovrts
(2 Tim. i. 13). Thus the orthodox teaching is styled ii Ka\ii SiSaffieaA/a
(1 Tim. iv. 6), or simply r) SiSaffxaXla (Ibid. vi. i), as though no other
deserved the name. Any deviation (iTtpoSiSaffKaKuv, Ibid. i. 3 ; vi. 3) is
self-condemned as being such. The heretic prefers his own self-chosen
private way to the universally-received doctrine ; he is to be cut off, after
two admonitions, from the communion of the Church (Tit. iii. 10) on the
ground that ^VrpairTai d toiovtos, kqI afiaprdvti, $)v avroKaTajcptTos (Ibid.).
Heresy is spoken of by turns as a crime and a misfortune, irepl rijv xiarir
evavdyriaav (i Tim. i. 19); airejrKaviiQjiGav airb rrjs tt'httcus (Ibid. vi. 10);
■trfpi t^iv a\fi8*iav ^t^x^o-v (2 Tim. ii. 18). Deeper error is characterized
in severer terms, airoari\irovTo.i T>js ir(<rTe<i>r, Trpo<r4xo,IT(s '"vtvp.a.ai irAarais
[ LECT.
Pastoral Epistles. 337
lines of teaching radiates from a most exalted conception of
Christ's Person, whether He is the Source of ministerial power1,
or the Sun and Centre-point of orthodox truth m. In stating
the doctrine of redemption these Epistles insist strongly upon
its universality11. The whole world was redeemed in the inten
tion of Christ, however that intention might be limited in effect
by the will of man. As the theories, Judaising and Gnostic,
which confined the benefits of Christ's redemptive work to races
or classes, were more or less Humanitarian in their estimate
of His Person ; so along with the recognition of a world-
embracing redemption was found the belief in a Divine Ee-
deemer. Accordingly in the Pastoral Epistles the Divinity
of our Lord is taught both in express terms ° and by tacit
implication. His functions as the Awarder of indulgence and
mercy P, His living invisible Presence in the Church i, His
active providence over His servants, and His ready aid in
Kal Stbao-KoXiais Satp.oviu>v .... KeKavrrjpicurfJLWwv t^jv ISlav avfeiSijaiv k.tA.
(i Tim. iv. I, 2); ovrot avBlffTavTai rrj aKrjdeiq, &i/Qpuirot KartfyOapiUvot rbv
vovv, aSSictfioi vepi t^v irloTtv (2 Tira. iii. 8) ; airb Tjjs aKijOelas rifv iuufo
anoo~Tp&pouo~w, 4nl 5e tovs p.vdovs eKTpair^aovTat (Ibid. iv. 4). Heresy eats
its way into the spiritual body like a gangrene, 6 \6yos abr&v as yiyypaiva
vopty t'|ci (Ibid. ii. 17). It is observable that throughout these Epistles
iFLtrrts is not the subjective apprehension, but the objective body of truth ;
not fides qud creditur, but the Faith. And the Church is oriiAos Kal kbpalafia
•Hjs a\Ti$tias (1 Tim. iii. 15). This truth, which the Church supports, is
already embodied in a viroTimoxris byiaiv6vTU>i/ \6ya>v(2 Tim. i. 13).
1 I Tim. i. 12 : &4p.evos els biaKoviav. 2 Tim. ii. 3 : o-TpaTi&Tqs 'Itjtrov
Xpurrov. So when the young widows who have entered into the Order
of widows wish to marry again, this is represented as an offence against
Christ, with Whom they have entered into a personal engagement, 8tox
yap KaTcunp-qviaauHTi tov XpiffTov, yapeiv Q4\ov(riv, fyovcrai KpifM, '6tl t$iv
npiiri\v nidTiv fiffeTrio-av (1 Tim. v. II, 12).
m I Tim. vi. 3, where moral and social truth is specially in question.
n Ibid. ii. 3. Intercession is to be offered for all. tovto yap xaXbv /tol
air6StKTOi' ivwmov tov 2ft>T7jpoy rj/xa/if 0€ou, os irdvTas avOp&irovs 8e\*L awSijvat
Kal els iiriyvuHTtv a\r}6e'ias 4\9ctv. els yap 0eoy, tts Kal p.ealTT\s Qeov Kal
av8p<Znrwv, &i/9pwtros XpioTbs >lijowovs) b Sovs eavrbv avTihorpov vnep •navrwv*
Cf. Ibid. iv. 10; Titii. 11.
0 Tit. ii. 13 : tov /xeyd\ov Qeov Kal ^urripos Tipojv 'lijffov Xpio-Tov.
P 1 Tim. i. 16 : 8(4 tovto ii\e-fi9yv, Iva 4v 4p.ol irpurtp ivbel^Tyrat 'Itjo-oCs
XptffTbs tV irao~av fiaKpodv/xlav. Cf. ver. 1 3. Compare the intercession for
the (apparently) deceased Onesiphorus : Stpr) abrip A Kipios evpetv eXeoj vapa
Kvplov iv ixelvri tj? ri/iipa (2 Tim. i. 18) ; where the second Kipios also must
be Jesus Christ the Judge, at Whose Hands St. Paul himself expects to
receive the crown of righteousness (Ibid. iv. 8).
1 Observe the remarkable adjurations, 5iap.apTvpop.ai ivtimov tov &eov Kal
Kvp'tov 'Itiavv XpiaTov Kal twc *k\€Kt5jv ayyeXtev (I Tim. v. 21); -napayye}<Aw
(roi iv&iriov tov &eov tov facnroiovvTos Ta navTa, Kal XpiffTov 'lt\aov tov
Haprvp^oavTOS M TIovtIov TIiK&tov tV KaKri" bpoXoyiav (Ibid. vi. 13).
VI ] Z
338 Why can no human name be substitutedfor
trouble1, are introduced naturally as familiar topics. And if
the Manhood of the One Mediator is prominently alluded to
as being the instrument of His Mediation8, His Pre-existence
in a Higher Nature is as clearly intimated *.
After what has already been said on the prominence of the
doctrine of Christ's Divinity in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
it may suffice here to remark that the power" of His Priestly
Mediation as there insisted on, although exhibited in His
glorified Humanity, does of itself imply a superhuman Person
ality. This indeed is more than hinted at in the terms of
the comparison which is instituted between Melchisedec and
His Divine Antitype. History records nothing of the parents,
of the descent, of the birth, or of the death of Melchisedec ;
he appears in the sacred narrative as if he had no beginning
of days or end of life. In this he is ' made like unto the Son
of God,' with His eternal Pre-existence and His endless days v.
This Eternal Christ can save to the uttermost, because He
has a Priesthood that is unchangeable, since it is based on
His Own Everlasting Being x.
In short, if we bear in mind that, as the Mediator, Christ is
God and Man, St. Paul's language about Him is explained by
its twofold drift. On the one hand, the true force of the
distinction between 'One God' and 'One Lord' or 'One Mediator'
becomes apparent in those passages, where Christ in His as
sumed Manhood is for the moment in contrast with the Un-
incarnate Deity of the Father y. On the other hand, it is
only possible to read the great Christological passages of the
Apostle without doing violence to the plain force of his lan
guage, when we believe that Christ is God. Doubtless the
Christ of St. Paul is shrouded in mystery ; but could any real
intercourse between God and man have been re-established
which should be wholly unmysterious 1 Strip Christ of His
' 2 Tim. iv. 17: 6 Se Kupids poi napiarr], koI iveSvvdpuae fie. Ibid,
ver. 18 : pfoeral fie 6 Kipios curb -navrbs epyov Trovypov.
» I Tim. ii. 5.
* Ibid. iii. 16. Baur, Vorlesungen, p. 351: 'Menschwird zwar Christus
ausdriicklich genannt (I Tim. ii. 5) aber von einem menschliclien Subject
kann doch eigentlich nicht gesagt werden itpavtprfidri iv caput. Es passt
diess nur fur ein hoheres iibermenschliches Wesen.'
a Heb. vii. 25 : at6£eiv els rb navreXes Svvarai.
v Heb. vii. 3 : andrtap, afiJjTaip, ayeveaK&yTiTos* fi-fire apx?lv VH*P&V> vfo*
fafjs rd\os fXQJf a.(pwp.ota>fi(vos Se t$ Yt£ rod 0«ou.
* Ibid. vers. 24, 25 : 6 Si, Sta. rb fitvew ainbv els rbv aluii'a, aTapaParov
exei tt\v iepwavvTjv '66ev Kal attifciv els rb iravTe\es ovvarai.
y I Cor. viii. 6 ; Eph. iv. 5 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5.
[ LECT.
the Name of Jesus, in the writings of St. Paul? 339
Godhead that you may denude Him of mystery, and what
becomes, I do not say of particular texts, but of all the most
characteristic teaching of St. Paul 1 Substitute, if you can,
throughout any one Epistle the name of the first of the saints
or of the highest among the angels, for the Name of the Divine
Redeemer, and see how it reads. Accept the Apostle's implied
challenge. Imagine for a moment that Paul was crucified for
you ; that you were baptized in the name of Paul 2 ; that
wisdom, holiness, redemption, come from an Apostle who, saint
though he be, is only a brother-man. Conceive that the Apostle
ascends for a moment his Master's throne ; that he says ana
thema to any who loves not the Apostle Paul ; that he is
bent upon bringing every thought captive to the obedience
of Paul ; that he announces that in Paul are hid all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge ; that instead of protesting ' We
preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves
your servants for Jesus' sake,' he could say, 'Paul is the end
of the law to every one that believeth.' Can you conceive it 1
What then is it in the Name of Christ which renders this
language, when it is applied to Him, other than unintelligible
or intolerable t Why is it that when coupled with any
other name, however revered and saintly, the words of Paul
respecting Jesus Christ must seem not merely strained, but
exaggerated and blasphemous'! It is not that truth answers
to truth, that all through these Epistles, and not merely in
particular assertions, there is an underlying idea of Christ's
Divinity which is taken for granted, as being the very soul
and marrow of the entire series of doctrines 1 that when this
is lost sight of, all is misshapen and dislocated ] that when
this is recognised, all falls into its place as the exhibition of
infinite Power and Mercy, clothed in a vesture of humiliation
and sacrifice, and devoted to the succour and enlightenment
of man 1
4. It is with the prominent features of St. Paul's charac
teristic teaching as with the general drift of his great Epistles ;
they irresistibly imply a Christ Who is Divine.
(a) Every reader of the New Testament associates St. Paul
with a special advocacy of the necessity of faith as the indis
pensable condition of man's justification before God. What is
this ' faith ' of St. Paul 1 It is in experience the most simple of
1 I Cor. i. 13: 11)1 Uav\os itrTavpddri £:rep vfiwv ; tj (Is t)> tvoy.a IIguXou
iBairriaSriTe ;
VI ] Z 2
340 A Divine Christ implied
the movements of the soul ; and yet, if analysed, it turns out
to be one of the most complex among the religious ideas in
the New Testament. The word nla-rts implies, first of all, both
faithfulness and confidence B ; but religious confidence is closely
allied to belief, that is to say, to a persuasion that some unseen
fact is true b. And this belief, having for its object the unseen,
is opposed by St. Paul to 'sight0.' It is fed by, or rather
it is in itself, a higher intuition than any of which nature is
capable ; it is the continuous exercise of a new sense of spiritual
truth with which man has been endowed by grace. It is indeed
a spiritual second-sight ; i and yet reason has ancillary duties
towards it. Reason may prepare the way of faith in the soul
by removing intellectual obstacles to its claims ; or she may
arrange, digest, explain, systematize, and so express the intui
tions of faith in accordance with the needs of a particular locality
or time. This active intellectual appreciation of the object-
matter of faith, which analyses, discusses, combines, infers, is
by no means necessary to the life of the Christian soul. It is
a special grace or accomplishment, which belongs only to a
small fraction of the whole body of the faithful. Their faith
is supplemented by what St. Paul terms, in this peculiar sense,
' knowledge d.' Faith itself, by which the soul lives, is mainly
passive, at least in respect of its intellectual ingredients : the
believing soul may or may not apprehend with scientific accuracy
that which its faith receives. The ' word of knowledge,' that is,
the power of analysis and statement which is wielded by theo
logical science, is thus a distinct gift, of great value to the
Church, although certainly not of absolute necessity for all
1 iraKiyyevfaia, Tit. iii. 5. In St. Matt. xix. 28, the word has a much
wider and a very distinct sense.
^ 1 Col. iii. Q, 10 : awexSvadfievoL rbv iraXawv HvSpunov Kal tvfiva-
dfievot rbv vtov. Eph. iv. 22-24 ! aTroQcaBat rbv iraXaibv avBpairov
rbv <p6up6fxevov Kara ras inidv/xlas tt}s airdTTjs' avavtovirdat Si rtp irveifxari
rov vobs vfiwv, Kal kvSuaaadai rbv Kaivbv avBpairov rbv Kara ®ebv KriaBevra
iv Sixaioaivri teal baiiriyri Trjs aXrjflei'as. Gal. iii. 27 : Xpiarbv ive$v<ra<r8t.
Rom. xiii. 14.
z Rom. xii. 2 : fiera/xoptpovtrBe rfj avaKaivctxrei rod vobs vfxStv. Ibid. viii.
29 : ots trpoeyvw, Kal vpodpHre (rufxfio'ptpovs rijs tiKOVQS rov Tiov abrbv. Cf.
Col. iii. 10 : Kar flx6va rov tcriaavros avr6v.
* Gal. vi. 15: Kaivii Krlois.
b Eph. ii. 10 : avrov ydp [sc. 0foC] tantv Troty^ta.
0 Ibid. iv. 24 : rbv Kara ®ebv Krto~6evra.
4 Ibid. ii. 10 : KTiirSeVres iv Xpiartp 'iTjtroD M Ipyots dyadou.
[lect.
in St. Paul's account of Regeneration. 345
new creation6. The instrument of regeneration on Christ's
part, according to St. Paul, is the sacrament of baptism f, to
which the Holy Spirit gives its efficacy, and which, in the case of
an adult recipient, must be welcomed to the soul by repentance
and faith. Regeneration thus implies a double process, one
destructive, the other constructive ; by it the old life is killed,
and the new life forthwith bursts into existence. This double
process is effected by the sacramental incorporation of the
baptized, first with Christ crucified and deads, and then with
Christ rising from the dead to life ; although the language of
the Apostle distinctly intimates that a continued share in the
resurrection-life depends upon the co-operation of the will of
the Christian11. But the moral realities of the Christian life,
to which the grace of baptism originally introduces the Chris
tian, correspond with, and are effects of, Christ's Death and
Resurrection. Regarded historically, these events belong to the
irrevocable past. But for us Christians the Crucifixion and the
Resurrection are not merely past events of history ; they are
energizing facts from which no lapse of centuries can sever us ;
they are perpetuated to the end of time within the kingdom
of the Redemption'. The Christian is, to the end of time,
e 2 Cor. v. 1 7 ; and perhaps I Cor. viii. 6, where ij/iteîs means * we re
generate Christians.'
f Tit. iii. 5 : tcuffev vftâs, ôib. \ovrpov iraXiyyevcalas Kal àvaKaivdaeas
Ylvti/iaros 'Aylov. Gal. iii. 2 J : '6<rot yap (is Xpio-rbv i0awrh6riTf, Xpurrbv
ivrtio-acrSe. I Cor. xii. 13.
s Rom. vi. 3, 4 : fj ayvoeirc Htl 'ôffoi 4^airTia,6r]fji(V (is Xpurrbv 'Vritrovv, els
rbv Bd.va.Tov avrov iPairrlaoTifiev ; o~vv(Tdip7ifJ.(V oiv ainÇ 5tà tov ^anrlfffiaros
els rbv ôâvarov.
h Ibid. vers. 4, 5 : 1va &o~irep Tjyepdrj Xpitrrbs in veupwv 5ià rrjs 86Çns rod
Tlarpbs, ovrtc Kal rjfxûs iv Kaivorryri Çaris irfpfTraT^trwfjLfV. ' El yàp ffvfitpvroi
yeydvafjLçy t$ àfiotdâfiœri rov Bavdrov avrov, à\\k Kal rijs avaardaeas ifféfifBa.
1 Reuss, Théol. Chrét. ii. 140 : 'La régénération en tant qu'elle comprend
ces deux éléments d'une mort et d'une renaissance, est tout naturellement
mise en rapport direct avec la mort et la résurrection de Jésus-Christ. Ce
rapport a été compris par quelques théologiens comme si le fait historique
était un symbole du fait psychologique, pour lequel il aurait fourni la ter
minologie figurée. Mais assurément la pensée de l'apôtre va au delà d'un
simple rapprochement idéal et nous propose le fait d'une relation objective
et réelle. Nous nous trouvons encore une fois sur le terrain du mysticisme
évangélique; il est question très-positivement a"une identification avec la
mort et la vie du Sauveur, et il n'y a ici défigurée que l'expression, puisqu'au
fond il ne s'agit pas de l'existence physique du Chrétien. Oui, d'après Paul,
le croyant meurt avec Christ, pour ressusciter avec lui ; et cette phrase ne
s'explique pas par ce que nous pourrions appeler un jeu de mots spirituel,
ou un rapprochement ingénieux; elle est l'application du grand principe
de l'union personnelle, d'après lequel l'existence propre de l'homme cesse
réellement, pour se cunfondre avec celle du Christ, qui répète, pour ainsi
VI]
34<5 A Divine Christ implied
crucified with Christ k ; he dies with Christ 1 ; he is buried with
Christ m ; he is quickened together with Christ n ; he rises with
Christ 0 ; he lives with Christ p. He is not merely made to sit
together in heavenly places as being in Christ Jesus % he is a
member of His Body, as out of His Flesh and out of His Bones r.
And of this profound incorporation baptism is the original
instrument. The very form of the sacrament of regeneration,
as it was administered to the adult multitudes who in the early
days of the Church pressed for admittance into her communion,
harmonizes with the spiritual results which it effects. As the
neophyte is plunged beneath the waters, so the old nature is
slain and buried with Christ. As Christ, crucified and entombed,
rises with resistless might from the grave which can no longer
hold Him, so, to the eye of faith, the Christian is raised from
the bath of regeneration radiant with a new and supernatural
life. His gaze is to be fixed henceforth on Christ, Who, being
raised from the dead, dieth no more. The Christian indeed may
fail to persevere ; he may fall from this high grace in which he
stands. But he need not do so ; and meanwhile he is bound to
account himself as ' dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God
through Jesus Christ our Lord 8.'
dire, la sienne, avec ses deux faits capitaux, dans chaque individuality se
donnant k lui.' O si sic omnia !
k Rom. vi. 6 : 4 ra\atbs r\y.av b\vipumo% avvitnavpiSt). Gal. ii. 20 : Xpiaru
vvvetTTavpccnat.
1 2 Tim. ii. II : (rvvawcQdvofiev. Rom. vi. 8 : aireOdvofiev trbv Xpi<TT$.
m Rom. vi. 4 : ffvveTd<pTjfj.fv ovv airrip Sict rod fiairTtaficiTos. Col. ii. 1 2 :
ffuVTapevres avrQ 4v T$ ^anrtafiaru
n Eph. ii. 5 : avvefaorolria* t§ Xpivry. Col. ii. 13 : trvvtfaonotiitTC avv
aura;.
0 Eph. ii. 6 : ffvvliyeipe [tijS Xpiarip]. There is no sufficient reason for
understanding Eph. ii. 5, 6 of the future resurrection alone; although in that
passage the idea of the future resurrection (cf. ver. 7) is probably combined
with that of the spiritual resurrection of souls in the kingdom of grace.
We have been raised with Christ here, that we may live with Him hereafter.
Col. ii. 1 2 : tv ip Kcd [sc. ir Xpio-riy] amnriyipBriri Sia t?)j iriaTeas ttis 4i>ep-
•yei'as tov ©cot". Ibid. iii. 1.
p Rom. vi. 8 : avtfiaoixtv abra. 2 Tim. ii. 1 1 : tl yap avva.Tre6dvoiJ.ev, koX
1 Eph. ii. 6 : ffvvtKdQiatv 4v rots ircovpavlots 4v XpttTT$ 'Itjitov.
T Ibid. v. 30 : fi*\ri iafxiv tov (Tcttfiaros airroO, 4k tt)s trapicbs abrov, ko\ 4k
tSiv oaritev omtov. Cf. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 56, 7 : ' We are of Him and
in Him, even as though our very flesh and bones should be made continuate
with His.'
B Rom. vi. 10, II : t yap aneBave [sc. 6 Xpiorbs], tt) auapTia airedavev
4<p&ira£' 0 5e $7, Cv rV ®e<£. outu koI v/xeis XoyifcaQe iavrovs vtKpobs ficv
elvai t?7 afiaprioy favTas 5e t£ ©t$ 4v XparTtp 'iTjaou t$ Kvpicp rjfiav.
[LECT.
in St. Paul's account of Regeneration. 347
This regenerate or Christian life is further described by two
most remarkable expressions. The Apostle speaks sometimes
of Christians being in Christ * ; sometimes of Christ being in
Christians u. The most recent criticism refuses to sanction the
efforts which in former years have been made to empty these
expressions of their literal and natural force. Hooker has ob
served that it is ' too cold an interpretation whereby some men
expound being in Christ to import nothing else but only that
the selfsame nature which roaketh us to be men is in Him, and
maketh Him man as we are. For what man in the world is
there which hath not so far forth communion with Jesus Christv?'
Nor will it suffice to say that in such phrases as are here in
question, 'Christ' means only the moral teaching of Christ, and
that a Christian is ' in Christ' by the force of a mere intellectual
loyalty to the Sermon on the Mount. The expression is too
energetic to admit of this treatment ; it resists any but a literal
explanation. By a vigorous metaphor an enthusiastic Platonist
might perhaps speak of his ' living in ' Plato, meaning thereby
that his whole intellectual activity is absorbed by and occupied
with the recorded thought of that philosopher. But he would
scarcely say that he is ' in' Plato ; since such a phrase would
imply not merely an intellectual communion with Plato's mind,
but an objective inherence in his nature or being. Still less
possible would it be to adopt the alternative phrase, and say that
Plato is 'in' the student of Plato. When St. Paul uses these
expressions to denote a Christian's relation to Christ, he plainly
is not recording any subjective impression of the human mind ;
he is pointing to an objective and independent fact, strictly pecu
liar to the kingdom of the Incarnation. The regenerate Chris
tian is as really ' in' Christ, as every member of the human family
is ' in ' our first parent Adam x. Christ is indeed much more
to the Christian than is Adam to his descendants ; Christ is the
sphere in which the Christian moves and breathes ; but Christ is
also the Parent of that new nature in which he shares ; Christ is
the Head of a Body, whereof he is really a member; nay, the Body
of which he is a member is itself Christ y. From Christ, risen,
1 Eom. xii. 5 ; I Cor. i. 2 ; xv. 22 ; 2 Cor. ii. 17; v. 17 ; xii. 19; Gal. i.
22 ; iii. 26; Eph. i. 3, 10; iii. 6; Phil. i. I ; I Thess. iv. 16.
u Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Col. i. 27.
' Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 56, 7.
1 See Olshausen on the Epistle to the Romans, § 9, ' Parallel between
Adam and Christ,' chap. v. 12-21, Introductory Remarks.
t 1 Cor. xii. 12.
VI] .
348 Faith in a Divine Christ the motive of
ascended, glorified, as from an exhaustless storehouse, there flow
powers of unspeakable virtue ; and in this life-stream the believ
ing and baptized Christian is bathed and lives. And conversely,
Christ lives in the Christian ; the soul and body of the Chris
tian are the temple of Christ ; the Christian is well assured that
Jesus Christ is in him, except he be reprobate z.
My brethren, what becomes of this language if Jesus Christ be
not truly God 1 No conceivable relationship to a human teacher
or to a created being will sustain its weight. If it be not a mass
of crude, vapid, worthless, misleading metaphor, it indicates rela
tionship with One Who is altogether higher than the sons of men,
altogether higher than the highest archangel. It is true that we
are in Him, by being joined to His Human Nature; but what is it
which thus makes His Human Nature a re-creative and world-
embracing power ? Why is it that if any man be in Christ, there
is a new creation0 of his moral being? And how can Christ
really be in us, if He is not one with the Searcher of hearts?
Surely He only Who made the soul can thus sound its depths,
and dwell within it, and renew its powers, and enlarge its capa
cities. If Christ be not God, must not this renewal of man's
nature rest only on an empty fiction, must not this regeneration
of man's soul be but the ecstacy of an enthusiastic dreamer 1
(y) It would, then, be a considerable error to recognise the
doctrine of our Lord's Divinity only in those passages of St. Paul's
writings which distinctly assert it. The indirect evidence of the
Apostle's hold upon the doctrine is much wider and deeper than
to admit of being exhibited in a given number of isolated texts ;
since the doctrine colours, underlies, interpenetrates the most
characteristic features of his thought and teaching. The proof
of this might be extended almost indefinitely ; but let it suffice
to observe that the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity is the key to
the greatest polemical struggle of the Apostle's whole life. Of
themselves, neither the importation of Jewish ceremonial, nor
even the disposition to sacrifice the Catholicity of the Church to
a petty nationalism, would fully account for the Apostles attitude
of earnest hostility to those Judaizing teachers whom he encoun
tered at Corinth, in Galatia, and, in a somewhat altered guise, at
Colossse and at Ephesus. For, in point of fact, the Judaizers
implied more than they expressly asserted. They implied that
Christ's religion was not of so perfect and absolute a character
as to make additions to it an irreverent impertinence. They
• 2 Cor. xiii. 5. a Ibid. v. 17 : elf tij ly XpttrrQ, koij^j lertais.
[ LECT.
St. Paul's opposition to the Judaizers. 349
implied that they did its Founder no capital wrong, when, instead
of recognising Him as the Saviour of the whole human family,
they practically purposed to limit the applicability of His work
to a narrow section of it. They implied that there was nothing
in His majestic Person which should have forbidden them to
range those dead rites of the old law, which He had fulfilled
and abolished, side by side with the Cross and Sacraments of
Redemption. The keen instinct of the Apostle detected the
wound thus indirectly but surely aimed at his Master's honour ;
and St. Paul's love for Christ was the exact measure of his
determined opposition to the influence and action of the Juda
izers. If the Judaizers had believed in the true Divinity of
Jesus, they could not have returned to the ' weak and beggarly
elements' of systems which had paled and died away before the
glories of His Advent. If they had fully and clearly believed
Jesus to be God, that faith must have opposed an insurmountable
barrier to these reactionary yearnings for ' the things which had
been destroyed.' Their attempt to re-introduce circumcision
into the Galatian Churches was a reflection upon the glory of
Christ's finished work, and so, ultimately, upon the transcendent
dignity of His Person. They knew not, or heeded not, that
they were members of a kingdom in which circumcision and
uncircumcision were insignificant accidents, and in which the
new creation of th& soul by the atoning and sacramental grace
of the Incarnate Saviour was the one matter of vital import b.
Although they had not denied Christ in terms, yet He had
become of no effect to them ; and the Apostle sorrowfully pro
claimed that as many of them as were justified by the law had
fallen from grace c. They had practically rejected the plenary
efficacy of Christ's saving and re-creating power ; they had
implicitly denied that He was a greater than Moses. Their
work did not at once perish from among men. For the Juda-
izing movement bequeathed to the Churches of the Lesser Asia
many of those theological influences which were felt by later
ages in the traditional temper of the School of Antioch ; while
* Gal. vi. 1 5 : 4v yap XpiffTtp 'Irjtrcu otjre irepirofi-f) ri Iffx^i otlSf oKpoBvo-ria.
i\\a Kaiv^i KTiVir. Here regeneration is viewed from without, on the side cf
the Divine Energy Which causes it ; in Gal. v. 6, where it is equally con
trasted with legal circumcision, it is viewed from within the soul, as consisting
essentially in ttictis ti aya-nys 4v(pyoufj.4vrj.
c Gal. v. 4 : KarijpyffOriTf airh tov XptOToO, dirtvei vAptp ZticaiovffS*, tt,s
yapiTos ^6TrcVaTe. Cf. Ibid. v. 2 : 4av TrtpntfiirqaQe, Xpiffrbs itfias oiifitv
VI]
350 Contrasts between the Apostles enhance theforce
outside the Church it was echoed in the long series of Humani
tarian mutterings which culminated in the blasphemies of Paulus
of Samosata. It must thus be admitted to figure conspicuously
in the intellectual ancestry of the Arian heresy ; and St. Paul,
not less than St. John, is an apostolical representative of the
cause and work of Athanasius.
Although the foregoing observations may have taxed your
indulgent patience somewhat severely, they furnish at best only
a sample of the evidence which might be brought to illustrate
the point before us. But enough will have been urged to dispose
of the suspicion, that St. John's belief and teaching respecting
the Divinity of Jesus Christ was only an intellectual or spiritual
peculiarity of that Apostle. If the form and clothing of St. John's
doctrine was peculiar to him, its substance was common to all
the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Just as the titles and position
assigned to Jesus Christ in the narrative of the fourth Gospel
are really in harmony with the powers which He wields and with
the rights which He claims in the first three Evangelists, so
St. John's doctrine of the Eternal Word is substantially one with
St. Paul's doctrine of the ' Image of the Father,' and with his
whole description of the redemptive work of Christ, and of the
attitude of the Christian soul towards Him. St. John's fuller
statements do but supply the key to the fervid doxologies of
St. Peter, and to the profound and significant reverence of
St. James. Indeed from these Apostles he might seem to differ
in point of intellectual temper and method, e,ven less than he
differs from St. Paul. Between St. Paul and St. John how great
is the contrast ! In St. Paul we are struck mainly by the wealth
of sacred thought ; in St. John by its simplicity. St. Paul is
versatile and discursive ; St. John seems to be fixed in the
entranced bliss of a perpetual intuition. St. Paul is a dialectician
who teaches us by reasoning ; he refutes, he infers, he makes
quotations, he deduces corollaries, he draws out his demonstra
tions more or less at length, he presses impetuously forward,
reverently bending before the great dogmas which he proclaims,
yet moving in an atmosphere of perpetual conflict. St. John
speaks as if the highest life of his soul was the wondering study
of one vast Apocalypse : he teaches, not by demonstrating truths,
but by exhibiting his contemplations ; he states what he sees ;
he repeats the statement, he inverts it, he repeats it once more ;
he teaches, as it seems, by the exquisite tact of scarcely disguised
but uninterrupted repetition, which is justified because there is
no higher attainable truth than the truth which he repeats.
[lect.
of their common witness to Christ's Divinity. 351
St. Paul begins with anthropology, St. John with theology ;
St. Paul often appeals to theology that he may enforce truths
of morals ; St. John finds the highest moral truth in his most
abstract theological contemplations. St. Paul usually describes
the redemptive gift of Christ as Righteousness, as the restoration
of man to the true law of his being ; St. John more naturally
contemplates it as Life, as the outflow of the Self-existent Being
of God into His creatures through the quickening Humanity of
the Incarnate Word. In St. Paul the ethical element predomi
nates, in St. John the mystical. St. John is more especially the
spiritual ancestor of such fathers as was St. Gregory Nazianzen ;
St. Paul of such as St. Augustine. It may be said, with some
reservations, that St. Paul is the typical Apostle of Western, as
St. John is of Eastern Christendom; that the contemplative side
of the Christian life finds its pattern in St. John, the active in
St. Paul. Yet striking as are such differences of spiritual method
and temper, they are found in these great apostles side by side
with an entire unity of teaching as to the Person of our Lord.
' Certainly,' says Neander, with deep truth, ' it could be nothing
merely accidental which induced men so differently constituted
and trained as Paul and John to connect such an idea [as that
of Divinity] with the doctrine of the Person of Christ. This
must have been the result of a higher necessity, which is founded
in the nature of Christianity, in the power of the impression
which the Life of Christ had made on the lives of men, in the
reciprocal relation between the appearance of Christ and the
archetype that presents itself as an inward revelation of God in
the depths of the higher self-consciousness. And all this has
found its point of connexion and its verification in the manner
in which Christ, the Unerring Witness, expressed His conscious
ness of the indwelling of the Divine Essence with Him d.'
d Planting and Training, i. 505, Bohn's edit. Neander adds : ' Had the
doctrine of Christ's Eternal Sonship, when it was first promulgated by Paul,
been altogether new and peculiar to himself, it must have excited much
opposition as contradicting the common monotheistic belief of the Jews, even
among the apostles, to whom, from their previous habits, such a speculative
theosophic element must have remained unknown, unless it had found a
point of connexion in the lessons received from Christ, and in their Christian
knowledge.' Of such opposition, direct and avowed, there is no trace, Cf.
Meyer. Ev. Joh. p. 49. Die Materie der Lehre war bei Johannes, ehe er in
jener gnostischen Form die entsprechende Darstellung fand, das Fundament
seines Glaubens und der Inhalt seiner Erkenntniss, wie sie bei Paulus und
bei alien anderen Aposteln es war, welche nicht, (ausser dem Verf. des He-
braerbriefs) von der Logos-Speculation beriihrt wurden; diese Materie der
VI]
35« Faith in a Divine Christ, the strength ofApostles.
This is indeed the only reasonable explanation of the re
markable fact before us, namely, that the persecutor who was
converted on the road to Damascus, and the disciple who had
laid on Christ's breast at supper, were absolutely agreed as to
the Divine prerogatives of their Master. And if we, my bre
thren, have ever been tempted to think that a creed like that
of St. John befits only a contemplative or mystic life, alien to
the habits of our age and to the necessities of our position, let
us turn our eyes towards the great Apostle of the Gentiles. It
would be difficult, even in this busy day, to rival St. Paul's
activity ; and human weakness might well shrink from sharing
his burden of pain and care. It is given to few to live 'in
journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in
perils from a man's own countrymen, in perils by the heathen,
in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the
sea, in perils among false brethren6,' for a purely unselfish object.
Few rise to the heroic scope of a life passed ' in weariness and
painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings
often, in cold and nakedness f.' But this is certain,—that at
much lower levels of moral existence, there is much to be done,
and much, sooner or later, to be endured, which we can only do
manfully and bear meekly in the strength of the Apostle's great
conviction. If St. Paul can suffer the loss of all things that at
the last he may win Christ, if he can do all things through
Christ that streDgtheneth him, it is because he is consciously
reaching towards or leaning on the arm of a Saviour Who is God
as well as Man. And if we, looking onward to the unknown
changes and chances of this mortal life, and beyond them, to
death, would fain live and die like Christians, we too must see
to it that we fold to our inmost souls that central truth of the
Christian creed which was the strength and joy of the first
servants of Christ. We too must believe and confess, that that
Human Friend Whose words enlighten us, Whose Blood cleanses
us, Whose Sacraments have renewed and even now sustain us,
is in the truth of His Higher Nature none other and no less
than the Unerring, the All-merciful, the Almighty God.
Lehre ist schlechthin auf Christum selbst zuruckzufuhren, dessen Eroffnun-
gen an seine Jiinger und dessen unmittelbarer Eindruck auf diese (Joh. 1 . 1 4)
ihnen den Stoff gab, welcher sich spater die verschiedenen Formen der Dar-
stellung dienstbar machte.
* 2 Cor. xi. 25, 26. f Ibid. ver. 27. Cf. Ibid. vi. 4-10, and xi. 5 sqq.
[ LECT.
LECTURE VII.
THE HOMOOXJSION.
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may he
Me by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Tit. i. 9.
e Rev. i. 1 7 : Stc etSov avThf, tiretra rpbs robs Tr6$as avrcv Sis venp6s.
VII ]
364 Worship of Jesus' during His Earthly Life.
to prostrate themselves before His throne as the throne of the
Omnipotent and the Eternal. In vain will you endeavour to
establish a parallel between the adoration of Jesus and some
modern ' devotion,' unknown to the early days of Christendom,
but now popularized largely in portions of the Christian Church ;
since the adoration of Jesus is as ancient as Christianity. Jesus
has been ever adored on the score of His Divine Personality,
of Which this tribute of adoration is not merely a legitimate but
a necessary acknowledgment.
1. During the days of His earthly life our Lord was surrounded
by acts of homage, ranging, as it might seem, so far as the
intentions of those who offered them were concerned, from the
wonted forms of Eastern courtesy up to the most direct and
conscious acts of Divine worship. As an Infant, He was ' wor
shipped' by the Eastern sages f; and during His ministry He
constantly received and welcomed acts and words expressive of
an intense devotion to His Sacred Person on the part of those
who sought or who had received from Him some supernatural
aid or blessing. The leper worshipped Him, crying out, ' Lord,
if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean s.' Jairus worshipped
Him, saying, ' My daughter is even now dead : but come and
lay Thy hand upon her, and she shall liveV The mother
of Zebedee's children came near to Him, worshipping Him,
and asking Him to bestow upon her sons the first places of
honour in His kingdom5. The woman of Canaan, whose
daughter was ' grievously vexed with a devil,' ' came and wor
shipped Him, saying, Lord, help me K' The father of the poor
lunatic, who met Jesus as He descended from the Mount of
Transfiguration, 'came, kneeling down to Him, and saying,
Lord, have mercy on my son V These are instances of worship
accompanying prayers for special mercies. And did not the
dying thief offer at least a true inward worship to Jesus Cru
cified, along with the words, ' Lord, remember me when Thou
comest into Thy kingdom111?'
f St. Matt. ii. 1 1 : Trfff6vres npoamvvi\aav airr$.
Bh Ibid. viii.182 :: irpofftKvva
Kupte, 4hv 64\r}s, Svvaaal t<fOTi
fie KaOapttrai.
Ibid. ix. aurgi, Keyav, rj Bvy&rrip yum &prt £reXei5-
TTitrcv a\\b. thOkv twl&ts T^jV X^P* ffov ^7r' at'i"};*', teal ^(TCTat.'
1 Ibid. xx. 20 : Trpo(TT)K9ev oury 7j fi-fynip rwv vlwv ZejSeSatou fiera riav viwv
auT7)y, irpoaKuvovGO. KaX aiTovtrd n vap' afrrov.
k Ibid. xv. 25 : rj 5e i\0ovffa Trpoa&c&vti auT$, Keyovtra, 1 Kipte f3oli0(i fioi.9
1 Ibid. xvii. 14, 15 : irpoarjXdev aury &v9pwnos yovvneTwv aur£, Kal Xeywv,
1 Ktipie, iXtrjtrSi' fiov rbv vi6v.'
m St. Luke xxiii. 42 : ifAeye Tip 'Iriaov, 'Mj^<rfl>)Ti' fiov, Kvpie, Brav ?A0i;s tp
T17 /SacriAedj aov.'
[LECT.
Worship of Jesus during His Earthly Life. 365
At other times such visible worship of our Saviour was an
act of acknowledgment or of thanksgiving for mercies received.
Thus it was with the grateful Samaritan leper, who, ' when he
saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice
glorified God, and fell down on his face at His feet, giving Him
thanks0.' Thus it was when Jesus had appeared walking on
the sea and had quieted the storm, and ' they that were in the
ship came and worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art
the Son of God.' Thus too was it after the miraculous
draught of fishes, that St. Peter, astonished at the greatness of
the miracle, 'fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me ;
for I am a sinful man, O Lord °.' Thus the penitent, ' when
she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought
an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at His feet behind
Him weeping, and began to wash His feet with tears, and did
wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed His feet, and
anointed them with the ointment p.' Thus again when the man
born blind confesses his faith in ' the Son of God,' he accompa
nies it by an undoubted act of adoration. ' And he said, Lord,
I believe. And He worshipped Him 1.' Thus the holy women,
when the Risen ' Jesus met them, saying, " All hail," came . . .
and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him1".' Thus
apparently Mary of Magdala, in her deep devotion, had motioned
to embrace His feet in the garden, when Jesus bade her 'Touch
Me not s.' Thus the eleven disciples met our Lord by appoint
ment on a mountain in Galilee, and ' when they saw Him,' as it
n St. Luke xvii. 15, 16: eTs fie i£ avrSiy, ISiip 8ti IdQri, vvitrrpetye, pera
ipuvTis neydKys 8o£u£av rbv @(6v Kal eireaev M irp6aumov irapa robs irrf5aj
abrov, ev^aptaroiv avT$.
0 St. Matt. xiv. 32, 33: iK6\aaev b avep-os' 01 fie ev rep ir\olcp e'XBo'vres
•KpoaeKvytiffav airy, Keyovres, ' 'AA?j0a)s ®eov Tibs el.' St. Luke v. 8 : Ifihv 5e
liixwv Uerpos vpoae-neo'e rots yivaai rov 'Itjo'oO, \eywv, 'yE£€A0e an' i^iov, St*
av^ip afmprw\6s elfit, Kvpie'
P St. Luke vii. 37, 38 : Kou'iffaaa a\i$aorpov /xvpov, Kal ataxia napa robs
n6fias avrov bnioa K\alovaa, tfp£aro fipexew T0^s nbfias avrov rots fidxpvffi, Kal
rats Opi^l rrjs KetpaKrjs avrr\s e^epaao'e, Kal Kare<pi\ei robs n65as avrov, Kal
¥l\eitpe rip fivptp. These actions were expressive of a passionate devotion ;
they had no object beyond expressing it.
Q St. John ix. 35-38 : fiKovoev A 'l-naovs Sti i£e0a\ov abrbv €£aj* na\ evp&v
abrbv, einev abrip, * 2,b niareveis els rbv Tlbv rod Qeov ; * 'AneKpidj] iKelvos Kal
elne, 1 Tis fori, Kvpie, Xva niore&o-u els abrbv ; ' E??re he abrtp 6 '1t](tovs, ' Kal
tuipaxas abrbv, Kal d \a\aiv fiera aov, ixetvbs iariv.' 'O fit (<pri, ' Utoreba,
Kvpie'1 Kal npoaeKvvinffev abrip.
r St. Matt, xxviii. 9 : 6 'l-naovs b.n^vrt\o'ev abrais, \eywv, 1 Xaipere.' Al fie
npoaeXQovaai iKpdrrtffav avrov robs nbfias, Kal npoaeKbv7io~av avrip.
■ St. John xx. 1 7.
VII ]
366 Gradations in the worship offered to yesus.
would seem, in their joy and fear, 'they worshipped Him*.1
Thus, pre-eminently, St. Thomas uses the language of adoration,
although it is not said to have been accompanied by any corres
ponding outward act. When, in reproof for his scepticism, he had
been bidden to probe the Wounds of Jesus, he burst forth into
the adoring confession, ' My Lord and my God u.' Thus, when
the Ascending Jesus was being borne upwards into heaven, the
disciples, as if thanking Him for His great glory, worshipped
Him ; and then 'returned to Jerusalem with great joy x.'
It may be that in some of these instances the 'worship' paid
to Jesus did not express more than a profound reverence.
Sometimes He was worshipped as a Superhuman Person, wield
ing superhuman powers ; sometimes He was worshipped by
those who instinctively felt His moral majesty, which forced
them, they knew not how, upon their knees. But if He had
been only a ' good man,' He must have checked such worship y.
He had Himself re-affirmed the foundation-law of the religion
of Israel : ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him
' St. Matt, xxviii. 1 7 : Kal iS6vres ainbv, vpoaficvrqaav avrtp- ol iSlirra-
<rav. If some doubted, the worship offered by the rest may be presumed to
have been a very deliberate act.
■ St. John xx. 28 : xai airtxplBri 6 OwjiiSs, Kal ehev dvt^, ''O Kipi6s fiov
Kal 6 @fis pov.' Against the attempt of Theodore of Mopsuestia and others
to resolve this into an ejaculation addressed to the Father, see Alfprd in loc;
Pye Smith on Messiah, ii. 53. The alirS is of itself decisive.
x St. Luke xxiv. 51,52: Kal avttpepero els rbv ovpav6v. Kal aurol irpoa-
KvvhaavTfS avrbvj viretrrpt^au tis *l€pov(Ta\^fjL juera XaP^s P-eya\t]S*
y This consideration is remarkably overlooked by Channing, who might
have been expected to feel its force. Channing is 'sure' that 'the worship
paid to Christ during His public ministry was rendered to Him only as a
Divine Messenger.' But prophets and Apostles were messengers from God.
Why were they not worshipped ? Channing insists further that such titles
as ' Son of David,' shew that those who used them had no thought of Christ's
being 'the Self-existent Infinite Divinity.' It may be true that the full
truth of His Divine Nature was not known to these first worshippers ; but
it does not hold good that a particular title employed in prayer exhausts the
idea which the petitioner has formed of the Person whom he addresses.
Above all Channing urges the indifference of the Jews 'to the frequent
prostrations of men before Jesus.' He thinks this indifference unintelligible
on the supposition of their believing such prostrations to involve the payment
of divine honours. That many of these prostrations were not designed to
involve anything so definite is freely conceded. That the Jews suspected
the intention to honour Christ's Divinity in none of them would not prove
that none of them were designed to honour It. The Jews were not present
at the confession of St. Thomas after the Resurrection ; but there is no
reasonable room for questioning either the devotional purpose or the theo
logical force of the Apostle's exclamation, ' My Lord and my God.' But
see Channing Works, ii. 194.
[ LECT.
Adoratioii of Jesus Glorified. 367
only shalt thou serve z.' Yet he never hints that danger lurked
in this prostration of hearts and wills before Himself ; He wel
comes, by a tacit approval, this profound homage of which He
is the Object. His rebuke to the rich young man implies, not
that He himself had no real claim to be called ' Good Master/
but that such a title, in the mouth of the person before Him,
was an unmeaning compliment. He seems to invite prayer
to Himself, even for the highest spiritual blessings, in such
words as those which He addressed to the woman of Samaria :
' If thou knewest the gift of God, and Who it is that saith unto
thee, Give me to drink ; thou wouldest have asked of Him, and
He would have given thee living water a.' He predicts indeed
a time when the spiritual curiosity of His disciples would be
satisfied in the joy of perfectly possessing Him; but He nowhere
hints that He would Himself cease to receive their prayers b.
He claims all the varied homage which the sons of men, in
their want and fulness, in their joy and sorrow, may rightfully
and profitably pay to the Eternal Father; all men are to
' honour the Son even as they honour the Father.'
2. Certain it is that no sooner had Christ been lifted up from
the earth, in death and in glory, than He forthwith began
to draw all men unto Himc. This attraction expressed itself,
not merely in an assent to His teaching, but in the worship
of His Person. No sooner had He ascended to His throne than
there burst upwards from the heart of His Church a tide
of adoration which has only become wider and deeper with
the lapse of time. In the first days of the Church, Christians
were known as 'those who called upon the Name of Jesus
Christ0? Prayer to Jesus Christ, so far from being a devotional
» St. Matt. iv. 10.
a St. John iv. 10: e! pSets t\v Sapeav tov 0eoC, tca\ tIs iffTiv b Xtytav trois
' A6s fjLoi Triitv* av av i}T7](ras avrbv, Kal %5wK€v &v aoi vb~wp (Giv.
b Ibid. xvi. 22 : naMv 5e otyop.ai Vfias, Kal xapfotTai vpLihv V Kapfita, Kal t))v
Xaouv vfiSiV oiifiels afpet a<p* vfiwv Kal 4v 4kzIvti rrj T\fi4pa ip.\ ovk ^pwrfvere
outer. Here e'/wnftireTe clearly means ' question.'
c Ibid. xii. 32.
d Thus Ananias pleads to our Lord that Saul 'hath authority from the
chief priests to bind iravras tovs tiriKahovuevovs rb vvopd ffov.' (Acts ix. 14.)
On St. Paul's first preaching in Jerusalem, 'All that heard him were amazed,
and said, Is not this he that destroyed in Jerusalem tovs tiriKaXov/Aevovs
rb Spo/xa tovto;' (Ibid. ver. 21.) Thus the title was applied to Christians
both by themselves and by Jews outside the Church. In after years St. Paul
inserts it at the beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, which
is addressed to the Church of God at Corinth aiiv iruo~i to7s 4wtKa\ovfi4pots rb
Svona tov Kvplou ii/iav 'lijnv Xpurrov. (1 Cor. i. 2.) The expression is
VII ]
368 Early apostolic prayers to. Jesus Glorified.
eccentricity, was the universal practice of Christians ; it wa8
the act of devotion which specially characterized a Christian.
It would seem more than probable that the prayer offered
by the assembled apostles at the election of St. Matthias,
was addressed to Jesus glorified6. A few months later the
dying martyr St. Stephen passed to his crown. His last cry
was a prayer to our Lord, moulded upon two of the seven
sayings which our Lord Himself had uttered on the Cross.
Jesus had prayed the Father to forgive His executioners. Jesus
had commended His Spirit into the Father's Hands*. The
words which are addressed by Jesus to the Father, are by
St. Stephen addressed to Jesus. To Jesus Stephen turns in
that moment of supreme agony ; to Jesus he prays for pardon
on his murderers ; to Jesus, as to the King of the world of
illustrated by the dying prayer of St. Stephen, whom his murderers stoned
IviKakovfLtvov leal \4yovra, 1 Kvpie 'Irjtrov, $4£cu rb irvevfid fiov.' (Acts vii. 59.)
It cannot he doubted that in Acts xxii. 16, 2 Tim. ii. 22, the Kipios Who
is addressed is our Lord Jesus Christ. 'EiriKoAe?<r0ai is not followed by
an accusative except in the sense of appealing to God or man. Its meaning
is clear when it is used of prayer to the Eternal Father, 1 St. Pet. i. if;
Acts ii. 21 (but cf. Rom. x. 13) ; or of appeal to Him, 2 Cor. i. 23 ; or of
appeal to a human judge, Acts xxv. II, 12, 21, 25; xxvi. 32 ; xxviii. 10.
Its passive use occurs in texts of a different constitution : Acts iv. 30 ;
x. 18; xii. 12 ; xv. 17; Heb. xi. 16 ; St. James ii. 7.
e Acts i. 24 : Kol trpoo-ev^d/xevoi cfrrop, * 2i» Ki5pt€ Kapfitoyvu/trra irdvTwv,
avdSet^ov 4k tovtuv tSiv Sio tva tv 4^t\4(u ' k.t.K. The selection of the twelve
apostles is always ascribed to Jesus Christ. Acts i. 2 : 06s 4£c\4£aTo.
St. Luke vi. 13: Kpoatty&vi\at robs /uafbjTaj avrov' (co! iieKftd/ttvos air' avTuV
Sc&ffefca, ots Ka2 avo<rr6\ovs wv6paae. St. John vi. 7° '• ovlt 4y4o v/ias tovs
5a)5eKO 4^K(^dp.i)V ; Ibid. xiii. 18: 4y&> olSa ois 4fc\e£dp.rii>. Ibid. xv. 16:
olix vp.us 4£f\4l-acr0e, a\k' 4y&> ^{e^ejtjjurjc i/ias. Ibid. ver. ig : 4yii
i£tKf£dnfV u/ias 4k tov kovhov. Meyer quotes Acts xv. 7 : 4 0ei>s ^eAefaro
Sia tov vt6\lo.t6s nov 6xovtxau rh 4Bvt\ tov \6yov tov evuyyeXiov, in order to
shew that the Eternal Father must have been addressed. But this assumes
that 0e<!j can have no reference to our Lord. Moreover St. Peter is clearly
referring, not to his original call to the apostolate, but to his being directed
to evangelize the Gentiles. St. Paul was indeed accustomed to trace up his
apostleship to the Eternal Father as the ultimate Source of all authority
(Gal. i. 15 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 1); but this is not inconsistent
with the fact that Jesus Christ chose and sent each and all of the apostles.
The epithet KapStoyvtio-rns, and still more the word Kipios, are equally
applicable to the Father and to Jesus Christ. For the former, see St. John
i. 50, ii. 25, vi. 64, xxi. 17. It was natural that the apostles should thus
apply to Jesus Christ to fill up the vacant chair, unless they had believed
Him to be out of the reach of prayer or incapable of helping them. See
Alford and Olshausen in lot",; Baumgarten's Apost. History in loc.
f Acts vii. 59, 60 : 4Ki0o^6\ovu Thy Srctpaiw, 4iriKahovfi€voy Kal \4yovra,
1 Kvpte 'l7}ffov, 8e£ai to irvev/id fiov,' ©els 5e ra ydvaTa, e/rpa|« tptavfj p.eyd\ri,
' Kvpie, jitij o-rfiarii ainois t%v afnaprlav touttjc.'
[ LECT.
The dying prayer of St. Stephen. 369
spirits, he commends his parting soul. It is suggested that
St. Stephen's words were ' only an ejaculation forced from him
in the extremity of his anguish,' and that as such they are
' highly unfitted to he made the premiss of a theological in
ference?' But the question is, whether the earliest apostolical
Church did or did not pray to Jesus Christ. And St. Stephen's
dying prayer is strictly to the point. An 'ejaculation' may
shew more clearly than any set formal prayer the ordinary
currents of devotional thought and feeling ; an ejaculation is
more instinctive, more spontaneous, and therefore a truer index
of a man's real mind, than a prayer which has been used for years.
And how could the martyr's cry to Jesus have been the product
of a 'thoughtless impulse V Dying men do not cling to devotional
fancies or to precarious opinions ; the soul in its last agony
instinctively falls back upon its deepest certainties. Nor can
the unpremeditated ejaculation of a person dying in shame and
torture be credited with that element of dramatic artifice which
may in rare cases have coloured parting words and actions
when, alas ! on the brink of eternity, men have thought more
of a ' place in history ' than of the awful Presence into which
they were hastening. Is it hinted that St. Stephen was a
recent convert, not yet entirely instructed in the complete faith
and mind of the apostles, and not unlikely to exaggerate par
ticular features of their teaching 1 But St. Stephen is expressly
described as a man ' full of faith and of the Holy Ghost S.'
As such he had recently been chosen to fill an important office
in the Church ; and as a prominent missionary and apologist
of the Gospel he might seem almost to have taken rank with the
apostles themselves. Is it urged that St. Stephen's prayer was
offered under the exceptional circumstances of a vision of Christ
vouchsafed in mercy to His dying servant h 1 But it does not
enter into the definition of prayer or worship that it must
of necessity be addressed to an invisible Person. And the vision
of Jesus standing at the right hand of God may have differed
in the degree of sensible clearness, but in its general nature it
did not differ, from that sight upon which the eye of every dying
Christian has rested from the beginning. St. Stephen would
not have prayed to Jesus Christ then, if he had never prayed
to Him before; the vision of Jesus would not have tempted
him to innovate upon the devotional law of his life ; the sight of
8 Acts vi. 5 : &v$pa irX^pij irltrrews teal TlvfOfiaros 'Aylov.
h So apparently Meyer in loc. : ' Das Stephanos Jesum anrief, war hochst
natiirlich, da er eben Jesum fur ihn bereit stehend gesehen hatte.'
VII ] Bb
37° Prayer of Ananias to Jesus Christ.
Jesus would have only carried him in thought upwards to the
Father, if the Father alone had been the Object of the Church's
earliest adoration. St. Stephen would never have prayed to
Jesus, if he had been taught that such prayer was hostile to
the supreme prerogatives of God ; and the apostles, as mono-
theists, must have taught him thus, unless they had believed
that Jesus is God, who with the Father is worshipped and
glorified.
Indeed St. Stephen's prayer may be illustrated, so far as this
point is concerned, by that of Ananias at Damascus. To Ananias
Jesus appeared in a vision, and desired him to go to the newly-
converted Saul of Tarsus ' in the street that is called Straight.'
The reply of Ananias is an instance of that species of prayer in
which the soul trustfully converses with God even to the verge
of argument and remonstrance, while yet it is controlled by the
deepest sense of God's awful greatness : ' Lord, I have heard by
many of this man, how much evil he hath done to Thy saints at
Jerusalem : and here he hath authority from the chief priests
to bind all that call on Thy Name V Our Lord overrules the
objections of His servant. But what man has not at times
prayed for exemption, when God has made it plain that He wills
him to undertake some difficult duty, or to embrace some sharp
and heavy cross ] Who has not pleaded with God the claims
of His interests and His honour against what appears to be
His Will, so long as it has been possible to doubt whether
His Will is really what it seems to be t Ananias' 'remonstrance'
is a prayer ; it is a spiritual colloquy ; it is a form of prayer
which implies daily, hourly familiarity with its Object ; it
is the language of a soul habituated to constant communion
with Jesus. It shews very remarkably how completely Jesus
occupies the whole field of vision in the soul of His servant.
The ' saints' whom Saul of Tarsus has persecuted at Jerusalem,
are the ' saints,' it is not said of God, but of Jesus ; the Name
which is called upon by those whom Saul has authority to
bind at Damascus, is the Name of Jesus. Ananias does not
glance at One higher than Jesus, as if Jesus were lower than
God ; Jesus is to Ananias his God, the Recipient of his worship,
and yet the Friend before Whom he can plead the secret
thoughts of his heart with earnestness and freedom.
1 Acts ix. I3; 14 : Kvpie, cuc^Koa iird iroWav xepl tov avSpbs rovrov, Zoa
KaKo. inoltjffe toTs ayiois (Tov Iv 'Upovaa^n' Kal w5e exel l%ov<jiav trapk twc
apxifpiuv, Brjfftu irdvTas tovs 4iriKa\ov/jL4yovs t6 tvopA aov.
[ T/F.CT.
St. Paul's first prayers to "Jesus. 37i
But he to whom, at the crisis of a far greater destiny, Ana
nias brought consolation and relief from Jesus, was himself
conspicuous for his devotion to the adorable Person of our Lord.
At the very moment of his conversion, Saul of Tarsus sur
rendered himself by a prayer to Christ, as to the lawful Lord
of his being. ' Lord,' he cried, ' what wilt Thou have me to
dok?' And when afterwards in the temple our Lord bade
St. Paul, ' Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem,' we
find the Apostle, like Ananias, unfolding to Jesus his secret
thoughts, his fears, his regrets, his confessions; laying them
out before Him, and waiting for an answer from Jesus in the
secret chambers of his soul \ Indeed St. Paul constantly uses
language which shews that he habitually thought of Jesus as of
Divine Providence in a Human Form, watching over, befriending,
consoling, guiding, providing for him and his, with Infinite fore
sight and power, but also with the tenderness of a human sym
pathy. In this sense Jesus is placed on a level with the Father
in St. Paul's two earliest Epistles. ' Now God Himself and our
Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you m ; '
1 Now our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God, even our Father,
Which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation
and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you
in every good word and work n.' Thus Jesus is associated with
the Father, in one instance as directing the outward movements
of the Apostle's life, in another as building up the inward life
of the recent converts to Christianity. In other devotional ex
pressions the Name of Jesus stands alone. ' I trust in the Lord
Jesus,' so the Apostle writes to the Philippians, ' to send Timo-
theus shortly unto you °.' ' I thank Christ Jesus our Lord,' so
he assures St. Timothy, ' Who hath given me power, for that He
k Acts ix. 6 : Tpepjuv re Kal 6au&wv e?7re, 1 Kvpie, Tt fie 6e\ets iroiTjtrai ; '
1 Ibid. xxii. 19, 20 : Kvpie, avrol initrrwrai, oVi iy£> ijfniv <pv\aKt£ui> koI
oepuv KaTa ras cuj'ay&ryas robs iriorevovTas &rl ire1' xal ore i^exeiro T0 aXfta
^Te(pdvou Toy fidprvp6s 0*01/, Kal aurbs t)fn\v eq>eo~T&s Kal avvevZoKwv Tp aval'
petrti ai/rov, Kal <pv\do~aotv to ifidrta tSiv avaipovvrwy auroV.
m I Thess. iii. II : Autos 5e 6 &ebs Kal Tlar^p ^uaV, Kal 6 Kiptos Tjfiuv
'lvffovs XpiffTbs, KarevQijvai rfy 6ibv TifiMiv irpbs vfias.
n 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17 : airrbs Se & Ktpios fipuov 'Irjtrovs Xpiorbs, Kal 6 Qebs
Kal Harty V/mov, o ayairfjaas Tjfias Kal dobs irapdKKrjo-iv alwvtav Kal i\iriSa
ayaQi)v Iv xdpiTi, irapatcaKeaai bfJMV rds KapSias, Kal ffTtjpi^at vfias ev iravil
\6ytp Kal ipytp ayaOip.
0 Phil. ii. 19 : i\irlfa Si (v Kvpitp 'Itjo-oO, TifiiBcov rax'tos Trefi^ai. 'This
hope was 4v Kvpltp 'I^o-cu : it rested and centred in Him ; it arose from no
extraneous feelings or expectations, and so would doubtless be fulfilled.'
Bp. Ellicott in loc.
VII ] Bb 2
372 Prayer to yesus Christ, how recognised
counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry P.' Is not
this the natural language of a soul which is constantly engaged
in communion with Jesus, whether it be the communion of
praise or the communion of prayer? Jesus is to St. Paul, not
a deceased teacher or philanthropist, who has simply done his
great work and then has left it as a legacy to the world ; He is
God, ever living and ever present, the Giver of temporal and of
spiritual blessings, the Guide and Friend of man both in man's
outward and in his inward life. If we had no explicit records of
prayers offered by St. Paul to Jesus, we might be sure that such
prayers were offered, since otherwise the language which he
employs could not have been used. But, in point of fact, the
Apostle has not left us in doubt as to his faith or his practice
in this respect. 'If,' he asserts, 'thou shalt confess with
thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart
that Gad hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness ; and with
the mouth confession is made to salvation. For the Scripture
saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. For
there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek : for the
Same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon Him. For
whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be
saved a.' The prophet Joel had used these last words of prayer
to the Lord Jehovah. St. Paul, as the whole context shews
beyond reasonable doubt, understands them of prayer to Jesus r.
And what are the Apostle's benedictions in the Name of Christ
but indirect prayers offered to Christ that His blessing might be
vouchsafed to the Churches which the Apostle is addressing?
'Grace be to you from God our Father, and from the Lord
p I Tim. i. 12: ko\ x$Plv *Xa T$ Ivo'vynfjufrffavrl fie XpiarQ *l7jaov r$
Kvpitp rifxSiv, '6ti tticttSv fis fiytjaaTO, 84p.*vos us titcucovlav.
1 Rom. x. 9-13 : 6p-o\oyr)(rris &v Tip ffr6imri aov Kvptov 'iTftroiw', Kal
Trurrtioris 4v tt) KapMa ffov Zti b 0ei$ avrbv tfyeipev 4k vexpuv, (TwO-fiarr Kapb"ia
yap 7riOTeu€Tai ets 8tKaioo~vvr]v, trri/jLari 5e dfioAoyeirai els cu>Ti)piav. Aeyei
yap 7i yparpri, ' Has 6 TCioTtvwv 4v' avr$ ov KaTaiaxvv6r]a€rat.' Ov ydp 4ffri
HiafTToAri 'lovllaiov re Kal "EkKrjvos' & yap ainbs Kvptos itdwuv, ttKovtSiv cis
Trdvras rovs imKaKovfxevovs avr6v. 1 lias yap ts av eViKaAfffTrrai ovofxti
Kvptov, cm0f)trcTat.' Cf. Isa. xxviii. 16 ; Joel ii. 32. Here St. Paul applies
to Jesu3 the language which prophets had used of the Lord Jehovah.
Cf. Acts ii. 21.
• Cf. Meyer in Rom. x. 12 : S yhp avrbs Kvptos vivTwv. 'Dieser Kvptos
ist Christus, der avris ver. 11 una der mit diesem avr6s nothwendig iden-
tische Kvptos ver. 13. Ware Gott (i.e. the Father) gemeint, so miisste man
grade den christlichen Charakter der Beweisfiihrung erst hinzutragen (wie
Olsk. : ' Gott in Christo '), was aber willkurlich ware.' For Kvptos ttivruv,
see Phil. ii. II, Cf. St. Chrys. in loc.
[lect.
in St. Paul's Epistles. 373
Jesus Christ s.' ' The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be
with you all*.' Or what shall we say of St. Paul's entreaties
that he might be freed from the mysterious and humiliating
infirmity which he terms his 'thorn in the flesh?' He tells
us that three times he besought the Lord Jesus Christ that
it might depart from him, and that in mercy his prayer was
refused". Are we to imagine that that prayer to Jesus was
an isolated act in St. Paul's spiritual life? Does any such
religious act stand alone in the spiritual history of an ear
nest and moderately consistent man ? Apostles believed that
when the First-begotten was brought into the inhabited world,
the angels of heaven were bidden to worship Himx. They
» i Cor. i. 3.
4 Eom. xvi. 24 ; and almost in the same words, ver. 20.
u 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9 : hv\p roirov rpls rbv Kipiov irapeKd\fffat SVa htroffTy
t/iov' Kai eipj]K4 fioi, ''Ap/ce? ffoi 7j x&Pls M01'" V 7&P SiivcyJs t*ou £v aadtvtta
TeAeiouToi/ f/5t<7Ta oZv p.a\\ov Kavx^icofiat iv rais iurBevetais |*ou, ^va ^1r("
aKtflidari lir' t\ Sivafiti rov Xpiorov. Meyer in loc. : ' riv Ktpiov, nicht
Golt (the Father), sondem Christum (s. v. 9, fi Svvafus rov Xpurrov), der
ja der machtige Bezwinger des Satan's ist Wie Paulus die Antwort,
den xpiMoTio-^s (Matt. ii. 12 ; Luk. ii. 6; Act. x. 22} von Christo emp-
fangen habe, ist uns vollig unbekannt.'
1 Heb. i. 6 : Hrav tie vd\iv tiffaydyri rbv irpur6roKov els rijy oikovh4v7]v,
Xeyei, ' Kol irpoa-KvyrjadTuirav avrq) irdvres &yyc\ot 0«oG.' On this passage
see the exhaustive note of Delitzsch, Comm. zum. Br. an die Hebraer, pp.
24-29. 'Die LXX. libers, bier ganz richtig wpoaicvvhawre, denn VinRK'n ist
ja kein praet. consec., nnd Augustin macht die den rechten Sinn treffende
schone Bemerkung: "adorate Eum;" cessat igitur adoratio angelorum, qui
non adorantur, sed adorant; mali angeli volunt adorari, boni adorant nec se
adorari permittunt, ut vel saltern eorum exemplo idolatrise cessent.' Es fragt
sich nun aber : mit welchem Kechte oder auch nur auf welehem Grunde
bezieht der Verf. eine Stelle, die von Jehova handelt, auf Christum?' After
discussing some unsatisfactory replies, he proceeds : ' Der Grundsatz, von
welchem der Verf. ausgeht, ist . . • . dieser : Ueberall wo im A. T. von einer
endzeitigen letztentscheidenden Zukunft (Parusie), Erscheinung und Erweis-
ung Jehova's in seiner zugleich richterlichen und heilwartigen Macht und
Herrlichkeit die Rede ist, von einer gegenbildlich zur mosaischen Zeit sich
verhaltenden OfFenbarung Jehova's, von einer Selbstdarstellung Jehova's als
Konigs seines Seiches: da ist Jehova= Jesus Christus; denn dieser ist
Jehova, geoffenbaret im Fleisch; Jehova, eingetreten in die Menscheit und
ihre Geschichte; Jehova, aufgegangen als Sonne des Heils iiber seinem
Volke. Dieser Grundsatz ist auch unumstbsslich wahr ; auf ihm ruht der
heilsgeschichtliche Zusammenhang, die tiefmnerste Einheit beider Testa-
mente. Alle neutest. Schriftsteller sind dieses Bewusstseins voll, welches
sich gleich auf der Schwelle der evangelischen Geschichte ausspricht ; denn
dem 'n DV soli Elia vorausgehn Mai. iii. 23 f. und irpb 7rpo<rt6irou Kvpiov
Johannes Lc. i. 76, vgl. 1 7. Darum sind auch alle Fsalmen in welchen die
Verwirklichung des weltuberwindenden Konigthums Jehova's besungen wird,
messianisch und werden von unserem Verf. als solche betrachtet, denn die
VII]
374 <Sf- John on prayer to the Son of God.
declared Him y, when His day, of humiliation and suffering had
ended, to have been so highly exalted that the Name which He
had borne on earth, and which is the symbol of His Humanity,
was now the very atmosphere and nutriment of all the upward
torrents of prayer which rise from the moral world beneath His
throne ; that as the God-Man He was worshipped by angels, by
men, and by the spirits of the dead. The practice of the Apostles
did but illustrate their faith ; and the prayers offered to Jesus
by His servants on earth were believed to be but a reflection of
that worship which is offered to Him by the Church of heaven.
If this belief is less clearly traceable in the brief Epistles of
St. Peter z, it is especially observable in St. John. St. John is
speaking of the Son of God, when he exclaims, ' This is the con
fidence that we have in Him, that, if we ask anything according
to His Will, He heareth us : and if we know that He hear us,
. . . ."we know that we have the petitions that we desired of
Him a.' These petitions of the earthly Church correspond to the
adoration above, where the wounded Humanity of our Lord is
throned in the highest heavens. ' I beheld, and lo, in the midst
of the throne .... stood a Lamb as It had been slain b.' Around
m Acts xiv. 14, 15 : Siafipii^avres ret i/xdria avTwv ti<reirifii)tmv fis rbv tx^ov>
KpdQovrzs Kol \4yovrts, ' "Avtipes, n ravra iroteire ; Kai 7ifieis b/xoioTraBeis
efffiev iifj.iv &v9puiroi, cvayytfatyfievot fyias anb rovrtav rSiv fiaraiav 4Trttrrp4<pav
iirln rbv
Rev.®ebvxxii.rbv8 :£aWa.'
koI 4y&> yludvvTjs 6 ^\4t<hv ravra kcu aKovwv Kai ore tfKovtra
Kai ej3Aei|/a, intoa irpotTKvvrjo'ai ffiirpoo-Bev rwv ttoHuv rov ayyikov rov 5eiK-
vvovrbs juot Tatrra. Kai \iyei fioi, * "Opa fir)' avvbovhAs o~ov ydp elpu Kai raoy
ab'e\(j>wi' cov twv irpoQrjruv, Kai twv rt\pobvruv robs \6yovs rov @if3\iov rov*
rov' r$ 0etp trpoaKVyyiorov.*
° Col. ii. 18 : firfbils vfias Karaf3pa&everut Qekwv iv Taveivofppotrvvr] Kai
BpriaKelq rwv ayyeKuv. The Apostle condemns this (i) on the moral ground
that the Gnostic teacher here alluded to claimed to be in possession of truths
respecting the unseen world of which he really was ignorant, a /ify 4ti>paKtv
ififtarevaiv, elKrj tpvo-tovfieyos virb rod vobs rrjs trapKbs avrov : (a) On the
dogmatic ground of a resulting interference with due recognition of the
Headship of Jesus Christ, the One Source of tie supernatural life of the
Church, Kai ov Kpartov r^iv K€<paA^f, *| ov ttuv rb trufxa bia rtav atpaiv Kai
uvvblaiutiv eirixop7iyov/j.ifov KaX tn/juj9t#a$jue»w, ai/|e* r)jv atifyio-tv rov
0eov.
P Heb. xii. 22 : irpotrtXiiXvBar* Siiv tptt, Kai t6\u @eov (avro*, 'Upw
oa\bfi tnovpaviq, Kai fxvptdtrii/ ayy4\wv, iravriyvpa Kai iKKK-qo-'iq TpwrorSKtav
iv ovpavots airoyeypafifitvuv, Kai Kpirij 0ca» irdvraiv, Kai iryevp.ao't SiKaiuv
TfT«\fiti)jueVai<', koI 8ia6^K?jr vtas p.ffflr-p '\r\aov.
Til]
378 (2) yesus worshipped with adoration due to God.
claimed for, and is given to, God alone ; and if Jesus is wor
shipped, this is simply because Jesus is GodL
/3. The worship paid to Jesus in the apostolic age was cer
tainly in many cases that adoration which is due to the Most
High God, and to Him alone, from all His intelligent creatures.
God Himself must needs have been, then as ever, the One
Object of real worship. But the Eternal Son, when He became
Man, ceased not to be God. As God, He received from those
who believed in Him the only worship which their faith could
render r. This is clear from the representations of heavenly wor
ship in the Apocalypse, which we have been considering, even
if we take no other passages into account. The Apocalyptic
worship of our glorified Lord is not any mere honorary acknow
ledgment that His redemptive work is complete. Even at the
moment8 of His Incarnation worship is addressed to Christ's
Divine and Eternal Person. Doubtless the language of devotion
to Him which we find in the Gospels represents many postures
of the human soul, ranging between that utter self-prostration
which we owe to the Most High, and that trustful familiarity
with which we pour our joys and sorrows, our hopes and fears
into the ear of a human friend. Such ' lower forms' of worship
lead up to, and are explained by, the higher. They illustrate
the condescension and purpose of the Incarnation. But the
1 The ' worship ' of Buddha has sometimes been compared to that of
our Divine Lord, as if Buddha were regarded as a real divinity by his fol
lowers. But 'le Bouddha reste homme, et ne cherche jamais a de'passer les
limites de 1'humanite', au deld de laquelle il ne concoit rien. L'enthousiasme
de ses disciples a e'te' aussi reserve^ que lui-mfime : dans le culte innocent
qu'ils lui rendaient, leur ferveur s'adressait a un souvenir consolateur et
fortifiant ; jamais leur superstition inUressee ne s'adressait d sa puis
sance . . . . Ni l'orgueil de (J&kyamouni, ni le fanatisme des croyants, n'a
concn un sacrilege; le Bouddha, tout grand qu'il se croit, n'a point risque
l'apotheose; .... jamais personne n'a songe a en faire un dieu.' Saint-
Hilaire, Le Bouddha, p. 168.
r Meyer's remarks are very far from satisfactory. ' Das Anrufen Christi
ist nicht das Anbeten schlechthin, wie es nur in Betreff des Vaters, als des
einigen absoluten Goites (!) geschieht, wohl aber die Anbetung nach der durch
das Verhaltniss Christi zum Vater (dessen wesensgleicher Sohn, Ebenbild,
Throngenosse, Vermittler, und Fiirsprecher fur die Menschen u. s. w. er ist)
bedingten Relativitat im betenden Bewusstsein .... Der Christum Ariru-
fende ist sich bewusst, er rufe ihn nicht als den schlechthinigen Gott, sondern
als den gottmenschlichen Vertreter und Mittler Gottes an.' In Rom. x.
1 2 our Lord is represented as being equal with the Father, and as therefore
equally entitled to adoration. Adoration is strictly due to the Uncreated
Substance of God, and to Jesus Christ as being personally of It. The me
diatorial functions of His Manhood cannot affect the bearings of this truth.
■ Cat. Rac. p. 164.
[lect.
(3) A doration of the Sacred Manhood of Jesus. 379
familiar confidence which the Incarnation invites cannot be
pleaded against the rights of the Incarnate God. A free, trust
ful, open-hearted converse with Christ is compatible with the
lowliest worship of His Person; Christian confidence even 'leans
upon His breast at supper,' while Christian faith discerns His
Glory, and ' falls at His feet as dead.'
y. The apostolic worship of Jesus Christ embraced His
Manhood no less than it embraced His Godhead*. According to
St. Paul His Human Name of Jesus, that is, His Human Nature,
is worshipped on earth, in heaven, and among the dead. It
is not the Unincarnate Logos, but the wounded Humanity of
Jesus, Which is enthroned and adored in the vision of the
Apocalypse. To adore Christ's Deity while carefully refusing
to adore His Manhood would be to forget that His Manhood
is for ever joined to His Divine and Eternal Person, Which is
the real Object of our adoration. Since He has taken the
Manhood into God, It is an inseparable attribute of His Per
sonal Godhead; every knee must bend before It; henceforth the
angels themselves around the throne must adore, not as of yore
the Unincarnate Son, but ' the Lamb as It had been slain.' .
3. Thus rooted in the doctrine and practice of the apostles,
the worship of Jesus Christ was handed down to succeeding ages
as an integral and recognised element of the spiritual life of the
Church. The early Fathers refer to the worship of our Lord as
to a matter beyond dispute. Even before the end of the first
century St. Ignatius bids the Roman Christians 'put up sup
plications to Christ' on his behalf, that he might attain the
distinction of martyrdom11. St. Polycarp's Epistle to the
* Cf. Pearson, Minor Theological Works, vol. i. 307 : ' Christus sive
Homo Ille Qui est Mediator, adoratus est. Hebr. i. 6; Apoc. v. II, 12.
H sec est plenissima descriptio adorationis. Et hie Agnus occisus erat Homo
ille, Qui est Mediator ; Ergo Homo Ille, Qui est Mediator est adorandus.
St. Greg. Nazianzen. Orat. li. : Et-m /j.}} irpoaicvveT tbv 4orTavpaifjievov3 av6.8tp.a
?(TTct), Kal TfTax8(i> (tt€Ta tcov footer6vu>v Cf. also Ibid. p. 308 : ' Christus,
qua est Mediator, est unica adoratione colendus. Concil. Gen. V. Collat.
viii. can. 9. Si quis adoraii in duabus naturis dicit Christum, ex quo duas
adorationes introducat, semotim Deo Verbo, et semotim Homini : aut si
quis adorat Christum, sed non und adoratione Deum Verbum Incar-
natum cum Ejus Carne adorat, extra quod sancta? Dei ecclesia; ab initio
traditum est ; talis anathema sit.' See the whole of this and the preceding
' Determination.' And compare St. Cyril's 8th Anathema ; Damasc, iv. 3 ;
Hooker, E. P. v. 54, 9.
u St. Ign. ad Rom. 4 : \navei<raTf vbv Xpurrbv [rbv Kvpiov ed. Dressel,
which, however, must here mean our Lord] farep 4/J.ov, Xva Sia tuv dpydvuv
Toinwv [Qeif ed. Dressel] Qvcrla. tvptOu. Cf. ad Magn. J.'
VIl]
380 The worship ofJesus in the subapostolic Fathers;
Philippians opens with a benediction which is in fact a prayer
to Jesus Christ, as being, together with the Almighty Father, the
Giver of peace and mercy x. Polycarp prays that ' the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Eternal Priest
Himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, would build up his
readers in faith and truth and in all meekness, . . . and would
give them a part and lot among the saints y.' And at a later
day, standing bound at the pyre of martyrdom, he cries, ' For all
things, O God, do I praise and bless and glorify Thee, together
with the Eternal and Heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy well-beloved
Son, with Whom, to Thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory, both
now and for ever. Amen2.' After his death, Nicetas begged
the proconsul not to deliver up his body for burial, ' lest the
Christians should desert the Crucified One, and should begin to
worship this new martyra.' The Jews, it appears, employed an
argument which may have been the language of sarcasm or of
a real anxiety. ' They know not,' continues the encyclical
letter of the Church of Smyrna, ' that neither shall we ever be
able to desert Christ Who suffered for the salvation of all who
are saved in the whole world, nor yet to worship any other.
For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we do adore ; but
the martyrs, as disciples and imitators of the Lord, we worthily
love by reason of their unsurpassed devotion to Him their own
King and Teacher. God grant that we too may be fellow-
partakers and fellow-disciples with themV The writers of this
remarkable passage were not wanting in love and honour to the
martyr of Christ. ' Afterward,' say they, ' we, having taken
up his bones, which were more precious than costly stones, and
of more account than gold, placed them where it was fitting0.'
* St. Polyc. ad Phil. I : t\eos bfiiv nal e'p^vri irapa OeoC rravTOKp&Topos
Kal Kvpiov 'Irjffov XpiffTov tov ^urfjpos rjfiaiv irXudvvBeit].
Y Ibid. 12 : ' Deus autem et Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et ipse
Sempitenras Pontifex, Dei Filius Jesus Christus, redificet vos in fide et veri-
tate et in omni mansuetudine, et det vobis sortem et partem inter
sanctos suos.'
« Mart. St. Polyc. c. 14.
* Ibid. c. 17: pit, (pT)a\v, iupivTts v)>v lo-Tavpa/ievov, tovtov &p^uvrai
Ibid. : ayvoovvTes, %ti ofire Tbv Xpiarb'v trore KOTaXiireTv HvvrjffSfjLeOa Tbv
inrep ttjs tov vayrbs k6o~iiov ruv aoj&nevtev traTTjpias tra&6vra, o&re €rep6v
riva ve&effBai. tovtov p.tv yap Tibv b'vra tov ©eov irpoffKvvovfitv Tobs Se
fidpTvpas, ws fiadiyras Kal fiifirjTas tov Kvpiov, ayarwfiey a^ivs, eVc/ca tvvolas
avvirepfiXfiTOv TTjs eij Tbv totov jSaffiXeo Kal 5i5aff/caAoV Hv yivono Kal ijfias
irvyKotvuvovs Tf Kal avn/xa0T)Tas ytrMait
' Mart. St. Polyc. c. 18.
[lect.
in SS. yustin, Irenczus, and Clement Alex. 381
But they draw the sharpest line between such a tribute of
affection and the worship of the Redeemer ; Jesus was wor
shipped as 'being the Son of God.' The Apologists point to
the adoration of Jesus Christ, as well as to that of the Father,
when replying to the heathen charge of atheism. St. Justin
protests to the emperors that the Christians worship God
aloned. Yet he also asserts that the Son and the Spirit share in
the reverence and worship which is offered to the Father6 ; and
in controversy with Trypho he especially urges that prophecy
foretold the adoration of Messiah'. St. Irenseus insists that the
miracles which were in his day of common occurrence in the
Church were not to be ascribed to any invocation of angels, nor
yet to magical incantations, nor to any form of evil curiosity.
They were simply due to the fact that Christians constantly
prayed to God the Maker of all things, and called upon the
Name of His Son Jesus Christ S. Clement of Alexandria has
d Apol. i. § 17, p. 44, ed. Otto. After quoting St. Luke xx. 22-25 he
proceeds : odev &ebv fiev fidvov irpoaKvvov/iev, Cfuv dt vpbs to &Wa xa^P0VT€S
Cnriperovfiev.
e Ibid. i. § 6, p. 14, ed. Otto. : Kal Sp.o\oyoifi.ev r&v roioirav i/o/tifo/teVaiv
Beuv &9eoi eivat, a\\' ouxl rov akrjBeararov Kal warpbs otKatoavvrjs Kal owippo-
avvrjs teal rSjv &W01V aperoiv, aveirtfi'iKrov re nutrias deov' aW' 4Kelv6v re, Kal
rbv trap* avrov Tlbv 4K66vra Kal $i5d£avra rj/uas ravra Kal rbv ruv ftWuv,
eirop.evwv Kal 4^0/j.oiovuevuv ayaOwv ayyeKtcv arparbv, Tlvevfid re rb 7rpo<pr/Ti-
kov aefi6[j.e9a Kal irpoaKvvov^iev \6ytp Kal a\r/0e/a rifiayres. With regard to
the clause of this passage which has been the subject of so much controversy
(Kal rbv riav &\\av .... ayye\uv arparbv), (i) it is impossible to make
arparbv depend upon ae$6pedu Kal rtpoaKvvovjn.iV without involving St. Justin
in self-contradiction (cf. the passage quoted above), and Bellarmine's argu
ment based on this construction (de Beatitud. Sanctor. lib. i. c. 13) proves,
if anything, too much for his purpose, viz. that the same worship was paid to
the angels as to the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Several moderns (quoted
by Otto in loc.) who adopt this construction use it for a very different object.
(2) It is difficult to accept Bingham's rendering (Ant. bk. 13, c. 2, § 2) which
joins ayyi\u>v arparbv and i/ias with SiSd^avra, and makes Christ the Teacher
not of men only but of the angel host. This idea, however, seems to have
no natural place in the passage, and we should have expected ravra T]p.as not
77iuSj ravra. (3) It seems better, therefore, with Bull, Chevallier (Transl.
p. 152), Mohler (Tubing. Theol. Quartalsch. 1833, Fasc. i. p. 53 sqq., quoted
by Otto) to make 4776X011' arparbv and ravra together dependent upon
oibd^avra : ' the Son of God taught us not merely about these (viz. evil
spirits, cf. § 5) but also concerning the good angels,' &c. ; rbv ayyekwv
arparbv being elliptically put for ra irepl rov . . . a77€A&jc arparov.
f Dial, cum Tryph. c. 68 : ypatpas, at OLap^Brjv rbv Xpiarbv Kal iraOrjrbv
Kal TrpoaKvvTjrbv Kal Qebv airoSeiKvi/ovatv. Ibid. c. 76 : Kal AavlS ....
Qebv iaxvpbv Kal irpoaKvvrirbv, Xpiarbv vvra, eby\\taae.
S Hser. ii. § 32 : 'Ecclesia nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi
invocans, virtutes ad utilitates hominum, sed non ad seductionem, perficit.'
Observe too the argument which follows.
VII ]
382 References to the worship ofJesus in Tertullian.
left us three treatises, designed to form a missionary trilogy.
In one he is occupied with converting the heathen from idola
try to the faith of Christ ; in a second he instructs the new
convert in the earlier lessons and duties of the Christian faith ;
while in his most considerable work he labours to impart the
higher knowledge to which the Christian is entitled, and so to
render him ' the perfect Gnostic' In each of these treatises,
widely different as they are in point of practical aim, Clement
bears witness to the Church's worship of our Lord. In the
first, his Hortatory Address to the Greeks, he winds up a long
argumentative invective against idolatry with a burst of fervid
entreaty : ' Believe, 0 man,' he exclaims, ' in Him Who is both
Man and God ; believe, O man, in the living God, Who suffered
and Who is adored11.' The Psedagogus concludes with a prayer
of singular beauty ending in a doxology", and in these the Son
is worshipped and praised as the Equal of the Father. In the
Stromata, as might be expected, prayer to Jesus Christ is rather
taken for granted ; the Christian life is to be a continuous
worship of the Word, and through Him of the Fatherk. Ter
tullian in his Apology grapples with the taunt that the Chris
tians worshipped a Man Who had been condemned by the
Jewish tribunals1. Tertullian does not deny or palliate the
charge ; he justifies the Christian practice. Whatever Christ
might be in the opinion of the pagan world, Christians knew
Him to be of one substance with the Father m. The adoration
of Christ, then, was not a devotional eccentricity ; it was an
absolute duty. In one passage Tertullian argues against mixed
marriages with the heathen, because in these cases there could be
h Protrept. c. x. p. 84, ed. Potter : trlaTtvaov, &v$panre, hvipilittp Kal 0e£-
Tritmuffov, &v9pwire, r$ iraB6vrL Kal TrpoffKUfovpLfPtp 0e<£ (uivrr 7rto-T6i5(raTe ol
SouAot t£ vtupai' irdvres &vQpwiroit TrHTTeutroTe p.6vtp Ttp kqvtwv aydpwiruf 0e<£'
inaTeiWTe Kal [xiffObv Xd$€T€ ffWTTjplav k.t.X.
i Psedagog. lib. iii. c. 7, p. 311, ed. Potter: Step ol>v Xontbv M toioutt;
iraVTjyvpet tov A6yov, Tip A6ytp Trpoo~cv£u>p.tda' al\a9t tois trots, iraib'aywyf,
iraiS'iois, IlaT^p, ijvlox* 'Iffpo^A, T« Kal Har^jp, "Ey &pcpu Kvpte. Sbs tie i)fitv
rots aots kirop.evois napayytAfiaai to ufj.otwfxa TrKrfpwtrat alvovpras (v-
XapifTTeiv, [sbxapio-Tovvras] alvtiv, toj pAvtp Tlarpl Kal Ttep, Tfiji Kal riai-pl,
iraitiayivytp Kal diSaffKaKtp Yiaj, avv Kal t$ ayitp Utretifiari, iriyra t£ 'Eel, iv ip
Ta irdvTa, t£ ov to. Trdvra %v, . . . $ il 5<i£a Kal vvv Kal els aluivas.
k See the fine passage, Stromat. lib. vii. c. 7, ad init. p. 851, ed. Potter.
1 Apolog. c. 2 1 : ' Sed et vulgus jam scit Christum ut hominum aliquem,
qualem Judsei judicaverunt, quo facilius quis nos hominis cultores existim-
averit. Verum neque de Christo erubescimus, cum sub nomine ejus deputari
et damnari juvat.'
m Apolog. c. 21 : ' Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, et prolatione gene-
ratum, et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dictum, ex unitate Substaniice.'
[ LECT.
References to the worship of fesus in Origen. 383
no joint worship of the Kedeemer» ; elsewhere he implies that the
worship of Jesus was co-extensive with faith in Christianity0.
Origen's erratic intellect may have at times betrayed him, on
this as on other subjects, into languageP, more or less incon
sistent with his own general line of teaching, by which it must
in fairness be interpreted. Origen often insists upon the worship
of Jesus Christ as being a Christian duty i ; he illustrates this
duty, especially in his Homilies, by his personal example1 ; he
n Ad Uxor. lib. ii. c. 6 : ' Audiat . . . de ganeS. Quae Dei mentio ? quae
Christi invocatio ?'
0 Adv. Jud. c. 7 : ' Ubique creditur, ab omnibus gentibus supraj enumer-
atis colitur, ubique regnat, ubique adoratur.'
P Particularly in the treatise, De Oratione, c. 15, vol. i. ed. Ben. p. 223 :
wus 8e ovk eon Kara tov elirbvTa* 1 Ti fie Xeyeis aya&6v ; ovSels ayados el fii)
ets b Qebs, b IIoTi^p"' eitreiv &v Tf ifiol irpoaevxy ; MoVqp Tip Tlarpl irpotr-
evxeoBai xph> <P Kayib irpoae^xofiat' Zirep fiik twv ayioiv ypatpuv fiapOdvere'
'Apxiepet yip t$ inrep tj/jlwv KaraoraOevTi inro rod Harpbs, Kal napaKK'firip
inrb tov Tlarpbs eivai \afi6vrt, eVxeo'Oat Tjpicts oi fiei, aAAa 5t' apxtepeais Kal
■napax^Tov k.t.X. This indefensible language was a result of the line taken
by Origen in opposing the Monarchians. ' As the latter, together with the
distinction of substance in the Father and the Son, denied also that of the
Person, so it was with Origen a matter of practical moment, on account of the
systematic connexion of ideas in his philosophical system of Christianity, to
maintain in opposition to them the personal independence of the Logos.
Sometimes in this controversy he distinguishes between unity of substance
and personal unity or unity of subject, so that it only concerned him to con
trovert the latter. And this certainly was the point of greatest practical
moment to him ; and he must have been well aware that many of the
Fathers who contended for a personal distinction held firmly at the same time
to a unity of substance. But according to the internal connexion of his own
system (Neander means his Platonic doctrine of the to bv) both fell together;
wherever he spoke, therefore, from the position of that system, he affirmed
at one and the same time the ereporvs rijs ovalas and the erepdryjs rrjs vwo-
oraaetas or rot) vvoKeifidyov.* Neander, Ch. Hist. ii. 311, 312. From this
philosophical premiss Origen deduces his practical inference above noticed :
ei yhp erepos, &>s &v b\\\ois SeiKvvrai, koyt overlay Kal {moKeipt.ev&s iffraf b Tibs
tov Tlarpbs, tfrot vpooKWiyreov Tip Titp Kal ov Tip Tlarpl, 4) apuporepois, if) Tip IIoTpl
fiivq). De Orat. c. 15, sub init. p. 222. Although, then, Origen expresses
his conclusion in Scriptural terminology, it is a conclusion which is traceable
to his philosophy as distinct from his strict religious belief, and it is entirely
contradicted by a large number of other passages in his writings.
1 Contr. Cels. v. 12, sub fin. vol. i. p. 587. Also Ibid. viii. 12, p. 750 :
eva oZv &ebv, us aTroSeSuKafitif, rbv Tlarepa Kol rbv Yibv Bfpairevo^iev Kal
pievei ripuv b irpbs tovs aWovs arev^s Xbyos' Kal ov rbv tvayxbs ye tpavevra,
ws rrporepov ovk ovto., inrepdpvo-Kevofiev. Ibid. viii. 26 : fibvtp yap vpoaevKTeov
rip tirl tain ©e£, Kal vpoaevKreov ye Tip Movoyevel, koi TlpwrorSKip irdtrrts
KTMT6&?;, Abyip @eov.
' See his prayer on the furniture of the tabernacle, as spiritually explained,
Horn. 13 in Exod. xxxv. p. 176: 'Domine Jesu, prsesta mihi, ut aliquid
monumenti habere merear in tabernaculo Tuo. Ego optarem (si fieri
VII ]
384 The worship of Jesus in Origen and Novatian.
bases it upon the great truth which justifies and demands such
a practical acknowledgment8. It is in keeping with this that
Origen explains the frankincense offered by the wise men to
our Infant Saviour as an acknowledgment of His Godhead ; since
such an action obviously involved that adoration which is due
only to God This explanation could not have been put for
ward by any but a devout worshipper of Jesus. In the work on
the Trinity11, ascribed to Novatian, in the treatises and letters x
b Contr. Cels. viii. 67 : 8p.vovs yap fir fi6vov rbv lir! iraai \4yo/i(i> ®eov, Kal
rbv novoyeVT) avrov A6yov Kal ®t6v' Kal vp.vovfi4v ye &tbv Kal rbv Movoysvrt
ai/Tov.
c Eas. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30 : ^afyiois Si robs piy tls rbv Kvpiov rjfjucp 'Iriarovv
Xpiffrbv iravGas, $>s 8^ vearipovs Kal vetorcp&v avSptav avyyptinfiaTa. The
account continues : c'ts eavrbv Si in /ita-p tti iKKAriffla, Ttj fie-yaAj; toC irdax"
7]/j.cpa tya\iMf>Se,LV yvvatKas TrapatrKevtlfav, &v Kal aKovaas av tis <ppL^eiev.
They seem to have sung in this prelate's own presence, and with his appro
bation, odes which greeted him as 'an angel who had descended from
heaven,' although Paulus denied our Lord's pre-existence. Vanity and un
belief ara naturally and generally found together. The historian adds ex
pressly : t6v p.iv yap Ylbv rov 0eoC ov fiov\eTai frvvofioKoyuv 2£ ovpavov
KaTCATjAlffcVcil.
[lect.
and in the Primitive Evening Hymn. 387
'Hail', gladdening Light, of His pure glory poured,
Who is th' Immortal Father, heavenly, blest,
Holiest of Holies—Jesus Christ our Lord!
Now we are come to the sun's hour of rest,
The lights of evening round us shine.
We hymn the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Divine!
Worthiest art Thou at all times to be sung
With undented tongue,
Son of our God, Giver of life, Alone !
Therefore in all the world, Thy glories, Lord, they ownd.'
A yet earlier illustration is afforded by the ode with which the
Alexandrian Clement concludes his Psedagogus. Although its
phraseology was strictly adapted to the 'perfect Gnostic' at
Alexandria in the second century, yet it seems to have been
intended for congregational use. It celebrates our Lord, as
' the Dispenser of wisdom,' ' the Support of the suffering,' the
' Lord of immortality,' the ' Saviour of mortals,' ' the Mighty
Son,' ' the God of peace.' It thrice insists on the ' sincerity ' of
the praise thus offered Him. It concludes :—
' Sing we sincerely
The Mighty Son;
We, the peaceful choir,
We, the Christ-begotten ones,
We, the people of sober life,
Sing we together the God of peace".'
Nor may we forget a hymn which, in God's good providence,
d Cf. Lyra Apostolica, No. 63. The original is given in Routh's Reliquise
Sacr. iii. p. 515 :—
*c5s iXapbv aylas 5<Jf7jy aBavdrov Harpbs
ovpaviov, ayiou, pdnapos,
'Itjctov Xpttrri,
4\66vres 4irl rov ijklov S6(rivr
ISSvTfs (pus Itnreptvdv,
ipvoviicv Har4pa, Kal Vibv, Kal "Ayiov Uvcvfia 0foO.
8£ios cT 4v vatri xaipois bftvuo&ai tpwvais boiais,
Y$ 0€ov, &}jv 6 SiSois'
Sib 6 k6<T)ios <re So£dfri.
St. Basil quotes it in part, De Spir. Sanct. 73. It is still the Vesper Hymn
of the Greek Church.
• Clem. Alex. Peed. iii. 12, fin. p. 313; Daniel, Thesaurus Hymnologicus,
torn. iii. p. 3. ' Der Ton des Liedes ist . . . . gnostisch versinnlichend.'
(Fortlage Gesange Christlicher Vorzeit, p. 357, qu. by Daniel):—
iraida Kpanp6yt
Xopbs slpfjvTjs
ol xP'fTdyovoi,
\abs atbQpuv,
ydMw/xtv dflOV 06OC elpf\V7is,
Til ] CC 2
388 Adoration of Christ in the Te Deum.
has been endeared to all of us from childhood. In its present
form, the Te Deum is clearly Western, whether it belongs to the
age of St. Augustine, with whose baptism it is connected by the
popular tradition, or, as is probable, to a later period But we
can scarcely doubt that portions of it are of Eastern origin, and
that they carry us up wellnigh to the sub-apostolic period. The
Te Deum is at once a song of praise, a creed, and a supplication.
In each capacity it is addressed to our Lord. In the TeDeum
how profound is the adoration offered to Jesus, whether as One
of the Most Holy Three, or more specially in His Personal dis
tinctness as the King of Glory, the Father's Everlasting Son !
How touching are the supplications which remind Him that
when He became incarnate ' He did not abhor the Virgin's
womb,' that when His Death-agony was passed He ' opened the
kingdom of heaven to all believers ! ' How passionate are the
pleadings that He would ' help His servants whom He has re
deemed with His most precious Blood,' that He would ' make
them to be numbered with His saints in glory everlasting ! '
Much of this language is of the highest antiquity ; all of it is
redolent with the fragrance of the earliest Church ; and, as we
English Christians use it still in our daily services, we may rejoice
to feel that it unites us altogether in spirit, and to a great extent
in the letter, with the Church of the first three centuriesf.
The Apostolical Constitutions contain ancient doxologies
which associate Jesus Christ with the Father as ' inhabiting the
praises of Israel,' after the manner of the Gloria Patrie. And
the Kyrie Eleison, that germinal type of supplication, of which
the countless litanies of the modern Church are only the varied
expansions, is undoubtedly sub-apostolic. Together with the
' On this subject, see Daniel. Thesaur. Hymnolog. torn. ii. pp. 279-299.
8 Constitutiones, viii. 12 (vol. i. p. 482, ed. Labbe), quoted by Bingham:
napaKaKovp.iv ffe . . . . 8ira>s iatianaa ^3s Stanjp^iras iv Tp tu<re/3e/a, eiri-
crvvaydyris iv rjj BaaAeiq. tov XpioroC aov tov ®fov irdans alaBrirris Kal voriTrjs
(bvatas, rod j8a<ri\ea>s fniav, arptTrrovs, auianTovs, aveyKKfaovs' 6ri aoi iraow
W{a, <r«j8as Kal eixaP'0"r'at T,M^ trpocncivricris Tip Harpi, Kal t$> Tf$, koI r$
'Aylip TlveiiMTi Kal vvv Kal ael Kal eis robs avtWtineis Kal &Te\€UT^TOus alavas
tuv alavav. Ibid. 1 3 (p. 4S3) : Sia tov XpiaTov aov fiffl'o? <roi 8<i|a, tiju)), aXvos,
So^oAoyta, wxapurrla, Kal t$ 'Ayitp nvtvpiaTt, els robs aluvas, a\d\v. Ibid. :
tvKoyrniivos i ipx&pfos iv ov6naTi VLvpiov @ebs, Kupios, Kal ineQavev rifiiv
'Claawh, iv toTs btylaTois. Ibid. 14 (p. 486) : iavrobs -tip 0e<p tu pAvip ayev-
vi\Tif ©ey, ko2 to) Xpiar$ aviov wapaBtifLtBu. Ibid. 1 5 (p. 486) : tovtos ^tas
iviavviyaye tis tV tSv ovpavav Baai\tlav, iv Xpiarw 'Inaov T<j> Kvpltp rifiSiV
fiefl' oS 001 8<i{a, Tiu'h koI aiBas Kal Tcp 'Ayl(p nvei^oTi ets robs al&vas, a^y.
Ibid. (p. 487) : 8V1 aoi 8<ija, ctfvos, lieyaKoirpeirtia, crt&as, irpoaKvri)ats, ko! r<3
<rip iraiSJ 'Inaov to~> Xpiariji aov ™ Kvpitp i\n&v Ka\ ©tq) Kal Baatktl, Kal T91
'Ayitp Tlvtv/iaTi, vvv koI ael Kal eis tovs aliivas tuv a'uivuv, a/ify.
[ LECTi
Eucharistic prayers to yesus Christ. 389
Tersanctus and the Gloria in Excelsis it shews very remarkably,
by its presence in the Eucharistic Office, how ancient and deeply
rooted was the Christian practice of prayer to Jesus Christ.
For the Eucharist has a double aspect : it is a gift from heaven
to earth, but it is also an offering from earth to heaven. In the
Eucharist the Christian Church offers to the Eternal Father the
' merits and Death of His Son Jesus Christ ;' since Christ
Himself has said, ' Do this in remembrance of Me.' The
canon of Carthage accordingly expresses the more ancient law
and instinct of the Church : ' Cum altari adsistitur, semper ad
Patrem dirigatur oratioV Tet so strong was the impulse to
offer prayer to Christ, that this canon is strictly observed by no
single liturgy, while some rites violate it with the utmost con
sistency. The Mozarabic rite is a case in point : its collects
witness to the Church's long struggle with, and final victory
over, the tenacious Arianism of Spain*. It might even appear
h Cone. Carth. iii. c. 13, Labbe, vol. ii. p. 11 70.
' Taking a small part of the Mozarabic Missal, from Advent Sunday to
Epiphany inclusive, we find sixty cases in which prayer is offered, during the
altar service, to our Lord. These cases include (1) three ' Illations' or Pre
faces, for the third Sunday in Advent, Circumcision, and Epiphany (and part
at least of this Mass for the Epiphany is considered by Dr. Neale in his
Essays on Liturgiology, p. 138, to be at least not later ' than the middle of
the fourth century') ; also (2) several prayers in which our Lord's agency in
sanctifying the Eucharistic sacrifice, or even in receiving it, is implied—e. g.
' Jesu, bone Pontifex sanctifies hanc oblationem;' or, in a ' Post
Pridie ' for fifth Sunday in Advent : ' Hsec oblata Tibi .... benedicenda
assume libamina ( . . . . tui Adventus gloriam, &c.).' (Miss. Moz. p. 17.)
So again, on Mid-Lent Sunday : ' Ecce, Jesu . . . deferimus Tibi hoc sacri-
ficium nostra; redemptionis accipe hoc sacrificium ;' on which
Leslie quotes St. Fulgentius, de Fide, c. 19 : ' Cui (i. e. to the Incarnate
Son) cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto .... sacrificium panis et vini .... Ec-
clesia .... offerre non cessat.' Again, in the Mass for Easter Friday, in
an ' Alia Oratio :* ' Ecce, Jesu Mediator .... hanc Tibi afferimus victi-
mam sacrificii singularis.' From Palm Sunday to Easter Day inclusive, the
prayers offered to Christ, according to this Missal, are twenty-nine. The zeal
of the Spanish Church for the Divinity of the Holy Spirit is remarkably
shewn in a ' Post Pridie ' for Whitsunday : ' Suscipe Spiritus
Sancte, omnipotens Dens, sacrificia ;' on which Leslie's note says, ' Ariani
negabant sacrificium debere Dei Filio oflerri, aut Spiritui Sancto .... contra
quos Catholici Gotho-Hispani Filio et Spiritui Sancto sacrificium Eucharisti-
cum distincte offerunt ;' and he proceeds to quote another passage from Ful
gentius that worship and sacrifice were offered alike to all the Three Persons,
'hoc est, Sanctae Trinitati.' The Gallican Liturgies, though in a less degree,
exhibit the same feature of Eucharistic prayer to our Lord. In the very old
series of fragmentary Masses, discovered by Mone, and edited by the Rev.
G. H. Forbes and Dr. Neale (in Ancient Liturgies of the Gallican Church,
part i.), as the 'Missale Richenovense' (from the abbey of Reichenau,
VII ]
39° Eucharistic prayers to jfesus Christ.
to substitute for the rule laid down at Carthage, the distinct
but (considering the indivisible relation of the Three Holy-
Persons to each other) perfectly consistent principle that the
Eucharist is offered to the Holy Trinity. This too would seem
to be the mind of the Eastern Church K It is unnecessary to
observe that at this day, both in the Eucharistic Service and
elsewhere, prayer to Jesus Christ is as integral a feature of the
devotional system of the Church of England, as it was of the
where they were found), there are four cases of prayer to Christ ; one of
them, in the ninth Mass, being in a ' Contestatio ' or Preface. In the
' Gothic' (or southern-Gallic) Missal, prayer is made to Him about seventy-
six times. Some of these cases are very striking. Thus on Christmas Day,
' Suscipe, .... Domine Jesu, omnipotens Deus, sacrificium landis ob-
latum.' (Muratori, Lit. Rom. ii. 521 ; Forbes and Neale, p. 35.) The
' Immolatio ' (another term for the Contestatio) of Palm Sunday is ad
dressed to Christ. The ' Old Gallican ' Missal, belonging to central Gaul,
has sixteen cases of prayer to Him, including the * Immolatio ' of Easter
Saturday. The 'Gallican Sacramentary ' (called also the Sacramentarium
Bobiense, and by Mr. Forbes, the Missal of Besancon) has twenty- eight
such cases, including three Contestations. The Canon of the Ambrosian Rite
has prayers to Christ.
k The principle affirmed in the old Spanish rite, that the Eucharist was to
be offered to the whole Trinity, and therefore to the Son, is also affirmed in
the daily Liturgy of the Eastern Church. The prayer of the Cherubic
Hymn, which indeed was not originally a part of St. Chrysostom's Liturgy,
having been inserted in it not earlier than Justinian's reign, has this con
clusion : 2u yap e? 6 irpoffipepaiv Kal npo<r<pep6fj.evos, Kal irpofftiexdtiGvos, Kal
SLaStSofjLivoSy XptaTe & &ebs Tjfiwv, Kal vol t^v 56£av avaTFt^nro^itv K.T.A.
About 1155 a dispute arose as to TTpocrfex&f-cos, an^ Soterichus Panteugenus,
patriarch-elect of Antioch, who taught that the sacrifice was not offered to the
Son, but only to the Father and the Holy Spirit, was condemned in a council
at Constantinople, 1156. 'This,' says Neale (Introd. to East. Church,
i. 434), ' was the end of the controversy that for more than seven hundred
years had vexed the Church on the subject of the Incarnation.' Between
this event and the condemnation of Monothelitism, Neale reckons the con
demnation of Adoptionism, in 794. Compare also, in the present Liturgy
of St. James, a prayer just before the 'Sancta Sanctis,' addressed to our
Lord, in which the phrase occurs, ' Thy holy and bloodless sacrifices.' The
same Liturgy has other prayers addressed to Him. In St. Mark's Liturgy,
among other prayers to Christ, one runs thus, ' Shew Thy face on this bread
and these cups.' After the Lord's Prayer, the Deacon says, ' Bow your heads
to Jesus,' and the response is, ' To Thee, O Lord.' In fact, the East seems
never to have acepted the maxim that Eucharistic prayer was always addressed
to the Father. Our ' Prayer of St. Chrysostom,' addressed to the Son, is the
' prayer of the third Antiphon ' in Lit. St. Chrys. ; and the same rite, and the
Armenian, have the remarkable prayer, ' Attend, O Lord Jesus Christ our
God and come to sanctify us,' &c. In the Coptic Liturgy of
St. Basil, our Lord is besought to send down the Spirit on the elements.
The present Roman rite has three prayers to Christ between the ' Agnus Dei'
and the * Panem coslestem.'
[lect.
Pagan observations on the worship of Jesus. 391
ancient, or as it is of the contemporary Use of Western
Christendom1.
Nor was the worship of Jesus Christ by the early Christians
an esoteric element of their religious activity, obvious only to
those who were within the Church, who cherished her creed, and
who took part in her services. It was not an abstract doctrine,
but a living and notorious practice, daily observed by, and
recommended to, Christians. As such it challenged the ob
servation of the heathen from a very early date. It is probable
indeed that the Jews, as notably on the occasion of St. Poly-
carp's martyrdomm, drew the attention of pagan magistrates to
the worship of Jesus, in order to stir up contempt and hatred
against the Christians. But such a worship was of itself calcu
lated to strike the administrative instincts of Roman magistrates
as an unauthorized addition to the registered religions of the
empire, even before they had discovered it to be irreconcileable
with public observance of the established state ceremonies, and
specially with any acknowledgment of the divinity of the reign
ing emperor. The younger Pliny is drawing up a report for the
eye of his imperial master Trajan ; and he writes with the cold
impartiality of a pagan statesman who is permitting himself to
take a distant philosophical interest in the superstitions of the
lower orders. Some apostates from the Church had been
brought before his tribunal, and he had questioned them as to
the practices of the Christians in Asia Minor. It appeared that
on a stated day the Christians met before daybreak, and sang
among themselves, responsively, a hymn to Christ as God11.
Here it should be noted that Pliny is not recording a vague
report, but a definite statement, elicited from several persons in
cross-examination, moreover touching a point which, in dealing
with a Roman magistrate, they might naturally have desired
to keep in the background0. Again, the emperor Adrian, when
n Contr. Cels. vii. 40, p. 722 : Vva jut? •jravrdirao'tv tJtc Karay4\affTot robs
fiev &\\ovs, robs $eiKWf>L€vovs BeoliS) us tfSuKa ^\aa<pi}ftovvrts' rbv tie Kal
airruv us aXrjOus elSuhuv aOkturrepov, Kal fiySe et8u\ov in, aAA' ovtus veKpbv,
fftfiovrts, Kal Tlarepa Sfioiov avry fyrovvres.
x Ibid. vii. 68, p. 742 : SteKtyxovrai ocupus ov aAA' ovSh tiaiftova
aAAa vtxpbv atfLovrts.
y Ibid. vii. 53, p. 732 : irScru 5* t\v bfuv &fxttvov, ye Kaivoroprjaat
ri 4ir€8vfJL'fi<raT(> ntpl &Wov riva ruv yevvoius airo6av6vruv, Kal Buov /xvdov
S4£a(r6ai Swaftevuv, airovb'do'at ; 4>f'pe, el frf) %peo-Ktv 'HpaxKTjs, Kal 'AokKtJ'
wtbs, Kal oi ird\ai b'€b'o£a<Tfifvoi, 'Op<p4a efy€T6 k.t.A. Cf. 57.
* Ibid. iii. 34, p. 469 : nera, ravra 1 wapairX-fjo-iov Tj/xas' oUrat 'TreiroirjKera/,'
rbv (us <pr]o~iv 6 K^Arros) aAtWa Kai airoQavdvTa BpTjtTKevovraSy* rots Ttrais
a4$ovfft rbv Zdfio\£iv, Kal KlA<{( rbv MStpov, Kal *A.Kapvao~i rbv 'AptplKoxov,
Kal &TjQaiois rbv 'A(r<ptdptuv, Kal AejSaSAus tov Tpoip&viov.'
a Ibid. iii. 43, p. 475: fitrb. ravra \4yet trtpi yfiuv ' Sti KaraycXuficv
ruv "npouKwovvruv rbv &ia, 4ir*l rdipos avrov 4v Kp^rr] tie'iKWTOi' Kal ovSlv
fyrrov tre&ofiev rbv &.vb tov rdtpov' K.T.A.
b Ibid. viii. 12, p. 750 : Srffai S' Ilv rts iffis toutoij iti6av6v ti Koff f)nuv
vii] ,
394 The worship of Christ defended by Origen,
In his replies Origen entirely admits the fact upon which
Celsus comments in this lively spirit of raillery. He does not
merely admit that prayer to Christ was the universal practice of
the Church ; he energetically justifies it. When confronting the
heathen opponent of his Master's honour, Origen writes as the
Christian believer, rather than as the philosophizing Alex
andrian0. He deals with the language of Celsus patiently and
in detail. The objects of heathen worship were unworthy of
worship ; the Jewish prophets had no claim to it ; Christ was
worshipped as the Son of God, as God Himself. ' If Celsus,'
he says, ' had understood the meaning of this, " I and the Father
are One," or what the Son of God says in His prayer, " As I and
Thou are One," he would never have imagined that we worship
any but the God Who is over all ; for Christ says, " The Father
is in Me and I in Himd." ' Origen then proceeds, although by
a questionable analogy, to guard this language against a Sabellian
construction : the worship addressed to Jesus was addressed to
Him as personally distinct from the Father. Origen indeed, in
vindicating this worship of our Lord, describes it elsewhere as
prayer in an improper sense e, on the ground that true prayer is
offered to the Father only. This has been explained to relate
only to the mediatorial aspect of His Manhood as our High
Priestf ; and Bishop Bull further understands him to argue that
the Father, as the Source of Deity, is ultimately the Object of
all adorations. But Origen entirely admits the broad fact that
Jesus received Divine honours ; and he defends such worship of
Jesus as being an integral element of the Church's lifeh.
\eyeiv iv T97, ' El fxev St; jU^SeVa a\\ov iBepdirevov oinoi tt\^]v eva &ebv, %v aV
Tts avTois taws irpbs robs aWous arei^s \6yos' vvvl 8e rbv %vayx<>s (pavevra
tovtov inrepdprio-KevovtTi, Kal ilfiws ovSkv TrXrifjLfieKetv vc[u£ov(Tl irepl rbv 0e2w, et
Kal VTT7]p€TT]s avTOv OepanfvtHiffCTat.'
c See however Contr. Cels. v. II, sub fin. p. 58"), where, nevertheless, the con
clusion of the passage shews his real mind in De'Orat. c. 15, quoted above.
d Contr. Cels. viii. 12, p. 750 : ttwfp vtvoi\K*i i KeAiros t6' ''Eyii Kal 6
Harfp eV eV^ey' Kal rb eV ev^ij upvpwov farb tov Tlov tov Geov iv Ttp' 1 'fls
4yw Kal ov eV iafiev,' ovk ay wsto t^ms Kal &\\ov Oepaireiieiv, vapa rbv iirl
TraVt ©t6v. 1 'O yap UaT^jp,' (prjalv, 1 eV ifiol, Kayi) iv t$ Tlarpt.'
6 Ibid. v. 4 : rrjs irepl Trpo<revxvs Kvpiatetias Kal Karaxp^aeus.
f Ibid. viii. 13, 16. ' Loquitur de Christo,' says Bishop Bull, ' ut Summo
Sacerdote.' Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 9, 1 5.
« Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. sect. ii. c. 9, n. 15 : 'Sin Filium intueamur relate,
qua Filius est, et ex Deo Patre trahit originem, turn rursus certum est,
cultum et venerationem omnem, quem ipsi deferimus, ad Patrem redundare,
in ipsumque, ut mjyijv O^ti^tos ultimo referri.'
h See Reading's note on Orig. de Orat. §15.
[lect.
by Lactantius and Arnobius. 395
The stress of heathen criticism, however, still continued to
be directed against the adoration of our Lord. ' Our gods,' so
ran the heathen language of a later day, 'are not displeased
with you Christians for worshipping the Almighty God. But
you maintain the Deity of One Who was born as a man, and
Who was put to deatli by the punishment of the cross (a mark
of infamy reserved for criminals of the worst kind) ; you believe
Him to be still alive, and you adore Him with daily suppli
cations i.' ' The heathen,' observes Lactantius, ' throw in our
teeth the Passion of Christ ; they say that we worship a Man,
and a Man too Who was put to death by men under circum
stances of ignominy and torture k.' Lactantius and Arnobius
reply to the charge in precisely the same manner. They admit
the truth of Christ's Humanity, and the shame of His Passion ;
but they earnestly assert His literal and absolute Godhead.
However the heathen might scorn, the Godhead of Christ was
the great certainty upon which the eye of His Church was
persistently fixed ; it was the truth by which her practice of
adoring Him was necessarily determined
If the Gospel had only enjoined the intellectual acceptance of
some philosophical theistic theory, its popular impotence would
have earned the toleration which is easily secured by cold,
abstract, passionless religions. In that case it would never
have provoked the earnest scorn of a Lucian or of a Celsus.
They would have condoned or passed it by, even if they had
1 Arnob. adv. Gentes, i. 36 : ' Sed non idcirco Dii vobis infesti sunt, quod
omnipotentem colatis Deum : sed quod hominem natum, et (quod personis
infame est vilibus) cruris supplicio interemptum, et Deum fuisse contenditis,
et superesse adhuc creditis, et quotidianis supplicationibus adoratis.'
k Lact. Div. Inst. iv. 16: 'Venio nunc ad ipsam Passionem, qua? velut
opprobrium nobis objectari solet, quod et hominem, et ab hominibus insigni
supplicio adfectum et excruciatum colamus : ut doceam earn ipsam Passionem
ab Eo cum magna et divinS, ratione susceptam, et in ea. soli et virtutem, et
veritatem, et sapientiam contineri.'
1 Arnob. adv. Gentes, i. 4 2 : ' Natum hominem colimus. Etiamsi esset
id verum, locis ut in superioribus dictum est, tamen pro multis et tam liber-
alibus donis, quse ab eo profecta in nobis sunt, Deus dici appellarique deberet.
Cum vero Deus sit re cert&, et sine ullius rei dubitationis ambiguo, inficiaturos
arbitramini nos esse, quam maxime ilium a nobis coli, et prsesidem nostri
corporis nuncupari ? Ergone, inquiet aliquis furens, iratus, et percitus, Deus
ille est Christus? Deus, respondebimus, et interiorum potentiarum Deus;
et quod magis infidos acerbissimis doloribus torqueat, rei maxima? causa
a summo Kege ad nos missus.' Lact. Div. Inst. iv. 29 : ' Quum dicimus
Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, non diversum dicimus, nec utrumque secer-
nimus : siquidem nec Pater sine Filio nuncupari, nec Filius potest sine Patre
generari.'
VII ]
396 Pagan caricature of the adoration of Jesus.
not cared to patronize it. But the continuous adoration of
Jesus by His Church made the neutrality of such men as these
morally impossible. They knew what it meant, this worship of
the Crucified ; it was too intelligible, too soul-enthralling, to be
ignored or to be tolerated. And the lowest orders of the popu
lace were for many long years, just as intelligently hostile to it
as were the philosophers. Witness that remarkable caricature
of the adoration of our crucified Lord, which was discovered not
long since beneath the ruins of the Palatine palace m. It is a
rough sketch, traced, in all probability, by the hand of some
pagan slave in one of the earliest years of the third century of
our era n. A human figure with an ass's head is represented as
m See ' Deux Monuments des Premiers Siècles de l'Église expliqués, par
le P. Raphaël Garrucci,' Rome, 1862. He describes the discovery and
appearance of this ' Graffito Blasfemo' as follows : — ' Comme tant d'autres
ruines, le palais des Césars récélait aussi de nombreuses inscriptions dictées
par le caprice. Après avoir recueilli celles qui couvraient les parois de toute
une salle, nous arrivâmes à trouver quelques paroles grecques, inscrites au
sommet d'un mur enseveli sous les décombres. Ce fut là un précieux indice
qui nous fit poursuivre nos recherches. Bientôt apparut le contour d'une tête
d'animal sur un corps humain, dont les bras étaient étendus comme ceux des
errantes dans les Catacombes. La découverte paraissait avoir un haut intérêt:
aussi Mgr. Milesi, Ministre des travaux publics, nous autorisa-t-il, avec sa
bienveillance accoutumée, à faire enlever la terre et les débris qui encom
braient cette chambre, le 11 Novembre, 1857. Nous ne tardâmes point à
contempler une image que ces ruines avaient conservée intacte à travers les
siècles, et dont nous pûmes relever un calque fidèle.
' Elle réprésente une croix, dont la forme est celle du Tau grec, surmonté
d'une cheville qui porte une tablette. Un homme est attaché à cette croix,
mais la tête de cette figure n'est point humaine, c'est celle du cheval ou
plutôt de l'onagre. Le crucifié est revêtu de la tunique de dessous, que les
anciens désignaient sous le nom d'inlerula, et d'une autre tunique sans
ceinture ; des bandes appelées crurales enveloppent la partie inférieure des
jambes. A la gauche du spectateur, on voit un autre personnage, qui sous le
même vêtement, semble converser avec la monstrueuse image, et élève vers
elle sa main gauche, dont les doigts sont séparés. X droite, au dessus de la
croix, se lit la lettre T ; et au dessous, l'inscription suivante :
AAEHAMEN02 2EBETE (pour 2EBETAI)
0EON
Alexamenos adore son Dieu.'
For the reference to this interesting paper I am indebted to the kindness
of Professor Westwood. See also Archdeacon Wordsworth's Tour in Italy,
ii. p. 143.
■ P. Garucci fixes this date on the following grounds : (1) Inscriptions on
tiles and other fragments of this part of the Palatine palace shew that it was
constructed during the reign of the Emperor Adrian. The dates 123 and 1 26
are distinctly ascertained. (Deux Monuments, &c, p. 10.) The inscription
therefore is not earlier than this date. (2) The calumny of the worship of
the ass's head by the Christians is not mentioned by any of the Apologists
[ LECT.
The 1graffito blasfemo' of the Palatine. 397
fixed to a cross ; while another figure in a tunic stands on one
side. This figure is addressing himself to the crucified monster,
and is making a gesture which was the customary pagan ex
pression of adoration. Underneath there runs a rude inscrip
tion : Alexamenos adores his God. Here we are face to face with
a touching episode of the life of the Koman Church in the days
of Severus or of Caracalla. As under Nero, so, a century and a
half later, there were worshippers of Christ in the household of
the Caesar. But the paganism of the later date was more in
telligently and bitterly hostile to the Church than the paganism
which had shed the blood of the Apostles. The Gnostic invec
tive which attributed to the Jews the worship of an ass, was
applied by the pagans with facile indifference both to Jews and
Christians. Tacitus attributes the custom to a legend respecting
services rendered by wild asses to the Israelites in the desert 0 ;
' and so, I suppose,' observes Tertullian, 'it was thence presumed
that we, as bordering on the Jewish religion, were taught to
worship such a figure p.' A story of this kind once current, was
who precede Tertullian, nor by any who succeed Minucius Felix ; which may
be taken to prove that this misrepresentation of Christian worship was only
in vogue among pagan critics in Rome and Africa at the close of the second
and at the beginning of the third century. (3) It is certain from Tertullian
that there were Christians in the imperial palace during the reign of the
Emperor Severus : ' Even Severus himself, the father of Antoninus, was
mindful of the Christians ; for he sought out Proculus a Christian, who was
surnamed Torpacion, the steward of Euodia, who had once cured him by
means of oil, and kept him in his own palace, even to his death : whom also
Antoninus very well knew, nursed as he was upon Christian milk.' Ad Scapu-
lam, c. 4. Caracalla'8 playmate was a Christian boy ; see Dr. Pusey's note
on Tertull. p. 148, Oxf. Tr. Libr. Fath. (4) ' Rien dans le monument du
Falatin ne contredit cette opinion, ni la pale'ographie, qui trahit la meme
£poque, tant & cause de l'nsage simultane" de Yb carre" et de 1*K semicirculaire
dans la mgme inscription, que par la forme ge'ne'rale des lettres; ni moins
encore l'ortographe, car on sait que le changement de 1'ai en e a plus d'un
exemple & Rome, ni6me sur les monuments grecs du regne d'Auguste. Enfin
les autres inscriptions grecques de cette chambre, qui sans prejudice pour
notre these, pourraient £tre d'une autre temps, ne font naltre aucune difficult^
s^rieuse, e"tant parfaitement semblables k celle dont nous nous occupons.'
Garucci, Ibid. p. 13.
0 Tac. Hist. v. c. 4. He had it probably from Apion ; see Josephus, c.
Ap. ii. 10. It is repeated by Plutarch, Symp. iv. 5 : rbv orov avatpivaina
avrots trvy^]P vSaros Tifiwai. And by Democritus : XpvaTjv ovou K((pa\^v
■Kpooenimw. Apud Suidas, voc. '\ovSis.
p Apolog. 16. Tertullian refutes Tacitus by referring to his own account
of the examination of the Jewish temple by Cn. Pompeius after his capture of
Jerusalem ; Pompey ' found no image' in the temple. For proof that the
early Christians were constantly identified with the Jews by the pagan world,
see Dr. Pusey's note on Tert. ubi supra, in the Oxf. Tr. Libr. Fath.
VII ]
398 Jesus Christ adored by early Martyrs.
easily adapted to the purposes of a pagan caricaturist. Whether
from ignorance of the forms of Christian worship, or in order to
make his parody of it more generally intelligible to the pagan
public, the draughtsman has ascribed to Alexamenos the gestures
of a heathen devotee 1. But the real object of this coarse cari
cature is too plain to be mistaken. Jesus Christ, we may be sure,
had other confessors and worshippers in the imperial palace
who knelt side by side with Alexamenos. The moral pressure
of the advancing Church was making itself felt throughout
all ranks of pagan society ; ridicule was invoked to do the
work of argument ; and the social persecution which crowned
all true Christian devotion was often only the prelude to a
sterner test of that loyalty to a crucified Lord, which could meet
heathen scorn with the strength of patient faith, and heathen
cruelty with the courage of heroic endurance.
The death-cry of the martyrs must have familiarized the
heathen mind with the honour paid to the Redeemer by Chris
tians. Of the worship offered in the Catacombs, of the stern
yet tender discipline whereby the early Church stimulated,
guided, moulded the heavenward aspirations of her children,
paganism knew, could know, nothing. But the bearing and
the exclamations of heroic servants of Christ when arraigned
before the tribunals of the empire, or when exposed to a death
of torture and shame in the amphitheatres, were matters of
public notoriety. The dying prayers of St. Stephen expressed
the instinct, if they did not provoke the imitation, of many a
martyr of later days. What matters it to Blandina of Lyons
that her pagan persecutors have first entangled her limbs in
the meshes of a large net, and then have exposed her to the
fury of a wild bull ? She is insensible to pain ; she is entranced
in a profound communion with Christ r. What matters it to
that servant-boy in Palestine, Porphyry, that his mangled body
is ' committed to a slow fire 1 ' He does but call more earnestly
in his death-struggle upon Jesus8. Felix, an African bishop,
after a long series of persecutions, has been condemned to be
beheaded at Venusium for refusing to give up the sacred books
1 Job xxxi. 27. St. Hieronym. in Oseam, c. 13: 'Qui adorant solcnt
deosculari manum suam.' Comp. Minuc. Fel. Oct. c. 2.
r Eus. Hist. Ecc. v. 1 : els yvpyadov j8\7j0e?cra, ravptp irapef3\-fifhl' KaL tKavws
avaftK-qdsitra vpus tov &ov, fiTjSe a%a0T\aiv %ti tu>v avfi$ouv6vruv txovoa Stct
tV 4\irlSa Kal eiroxV tuc neirio'Tevp.ivwv /cot dp.t\iav irpbs Xptffr6y.
• Ibid. Mart. Pal. 1 1 : KaBmpa/idrns avrov rrjs (pKoybs iirffi^e tpuviiv, rhv
Tibv tov &fov 'iTjaovy j8otj0cV €ir<j8oc6lutj'c,w.
[ LECT.
The Martyrs pray to Jesus in their agony. 399
to the proconsul. ' Raising his eyes to heaven, he said with a
clear voice . . . " O Lord God of heaven and earth, Jesu Christ,
to Thee do I bend my neck by way of sacrifice, 0 Thou Who
abidest for ever, to Whom belong glory and majesty, world
without end. Amen*." ' Theodotus of Ancyra has been betrayed
by the apostate Polychronius, and is joining in a last prayer with
the sorrowing Church. 'Lord Jesu Christ,' he cries, 'Thou
Hope of the hopeless, grant that I may finish the course of my
conflict, and offer the shedding of my blood as a libation and
sacrifice, to the relief of all those who suffer for Thee. Do Thou
lighten their burden ; and still this tempest of persecution, that
all who believe in Thee may enjoy rest and quietness u.' And
afterwards, in the extremity of his torture, he prays thus : ' Lord
Jesu Christ, Thou Hope of the hopeless, hear my prayer, and
assuage this agony, seeing that for Thy Name's sake I suffer
thus x.' And when the pain had failed to bend his resolution,
and the last sentence had been pronounced by the angry judge,
1 0 Lord Jesu Christ,', the martyr exclaims, ' Thou Maker of
heaven and earth, Who forsakest not them that put their hope
in Thee, I give Thee thanks for that Thou hast made me meet
to be citizen of Thy heavenly city, and to have a share in Thy
kingdom. I give Thee thanks, that Thou hast given me strength
to conquer the dragon, and to bruise his head. Give rest unto
Thy servants, and stay the fierceness of the enemies in my
' Ruinart, Acta Martyrum Sincere, ed. Veronse, 1 731, p. 314. Acta
S. Felicis Episcopi, anno 303 : 'Felix Episcopus, elevans oculos in ccelum,
clara voce dixit, Deus, yratias Tibi. Quinquaginta et sex annoa habeo in hoc
sceculo. Virginitatem custodivi, Evangelia servant, fidem et veritatem praz-
dicavi. Domine Deus cceli et terra, Jesu Ckriste, Tibi cervicem meam ad
victimam flecto, Qui permanes in atemum ; Cui est claritas et magnificentia
in scecula saculorum. Amen.'
u Ibid. p. 303, Passio S. Theodoti Ancyrani, et septem virginum : ' Theo
dotus, valedicens fratribus, jubensque ne ab oratione cessarent, sed Deum
orarent ut corona ipsi obtingeret, prseparavit se ad verbera sustinenda. Simul
igitur perstiterunt in oratione cum martyre, qui prolixe precatus, tandem ait :
Domine Jesu Christe, spes desperatorum, da mihi certaminis cursum perficere,
et sanguinis effusionem pro sacrificio et Ubatione offerre, omnium eorum causa,
qui propter Te affliguntur. Alleva onus eorum ; et compesce tempestatem, ut
requie et profundi, tranquillitate potiantur omnes qui in Te credunt.'
* Ibid. p. 307 : ' Videna ergo Prseses se frustra laborare, et fatigatos
tortores deficere ; depositum de ligno jussit super ignitas testulas collocari.
Quibus etiam interiora corporis penetrantibus gravissimum dolorem sentiens
Theodotus, oravit dicens, Domine Jem Christe, spes desperatorum, exaudi
orationem meam, et cruciatum hunc mitiga j quia propter Nomen Sanctum
Tuum ista patior.'
VII ]
4oo The Martyrs pray to "Jesus in their agony.
person. Give peace unto Thy Church, and set her free from
the tyranny of the devil y.'
Thus it was that the martyrs prayed and died. Their voices
reach us across the chasm of intervening centuries ; but time
cannot impair the moral majesty, or weaken the accents of their
strong and simple conviction. One after another their piercing
words, in which the sharpest human agony is so entwined with
a superhuman faith, fall upon our ears. ' O Christ, Thou Son
of God, deliver Thy servants z.' ' O Lord Jesu Christ, we are
Christians ; Thee do we serve ; Thou art our Hope ; Thou art
the Hope of Christians; 0 God Most Holy, 0 God Most
High, O God Almighty6.' 'O Christ,' cries a martyr again
and again amidst his agonies, ' 0 Christ, let me not be con-
foundedV ' Help, I pray Thee, O Christ, have pity. Pre
serve my soul, guard my spirit, that I be not ashamed. I pray
Thee, 0 Christ, grant me power of endurance0.' ' I pray Thee,
Christ, hear me. I thank Thee, my God ; command that I be
J Ruinart, Acta, p. 307: . 'Cumque ad locum pervenissent, orare ccepit
Martyr in hsec verba : Domine Jesu Christe, coeli terrceque conditor, qui non
derelinquis sperantes in Te, gratias Tibi ago, quia fecisti me dignum coelestis
Tuce TJrbis civem, Tuique regni consortem. Gratias Tibi ago, quia donasti
mihi draconem vmcere, et caput ejus conterere. Da requiem servis Tuis, atque
in me siste violentiam inimicorum. Da Ecclesia Turn pacem, eruens earn a
tyrannide diaboli.'
' 1 Ibid. p. 340 ; Acta SS. Saturnini, Dativi, et aliorum plurimorum
martyrum in Africa^ a. 304 : ' Thelica martyr, media, de ipsa" carnificum rabie
hujusmodi preces Domino cum gratiarum actione effundebat : Deo gratias.
In Nomine Tuo, Christe Dei Fili, libera servos Tuos.'
• Ibid.: 'Cum ictibus ungularum concussa fortius latera sulcarentur, proflu-
ensque sanguinis unda violentis tractibus emanaret, Proconsulem sibi dicentem
audivit: Incipies sentire qua; vos pati oporteat. Etadjecit: Adgloriam. Gra
tias ago Deo regnorum. Apparet regnum ceternum, regnum incorruptum. Do
mine Jesu Christe, Christiani sumus ; Tibi servimus ; Tu es spes nostra; Tuts
spes Ckristianorum ; Deus sanctissime ; Deus altissime ; Deus omnipotens.'
b Ibid. p. 341 : 'Advolabant truces manus jussis velocibus leviores, secre-
taque pectoris, disruptis cutibus, visceribusque divulsis, nefandis adspectibus
profanorum adne.xft crudelitate pandebant. Inter haec Martyris mens immo-
bilis perstat : et licet membra rumpantur, divellantur viscera, latera dissi-
pentur, animus tamen martyris integer, inconcussusque perdurat. Denique
dignitatis suae memor Dativus, qui et Senator, tali voce preces Domino sub
carnifice rabiente fundebat: 0 Christe Domine, non confundar.' Ibid. p. 342 :
'At martyr, inter vulnerum cruciatus ssevissimos pristinam suam repetens
orationem : Bogo, ait, Christe, non confundar.'
0 Ibid. p. 342 : ' Spectabat interea Dativus Ianienam corporis sui potius
quam dolebat : et cujus ad Dominum mens animusque pendebat, nihil dol-
orem corporis sestimabat, sed tantum ad Dominum precabatur, dicens ; Sub-
veni, rogo, Christe, habe pietatem. Serva animam meam ; custodi spiritum
meum ut non confundar. Rogo, Christe, da sufferentiam.'
[ I,EOT.
The Martyrs pray to Jesus in their agony. 401
beheaded. I pray Thee, Christ, have mercy ; help me, Thou
Son of Godd' ' I pray Thee, O Christ : all praise to Thee.
Deliver me, 0 Christ ; I suffer in Thy Name. I suffer for a
short while ; I suffer with a willing mind, 0 Christ my Lord :
let me not be confoundede.'
Or listen to such an extract from an early document as the
following :—' Calvisianus, interrupting Euplius, said, " Let Eu-
plius, who hath not in compliance with the edict of the emperors
given up the sacred writings, but readeth them to the people, be
put to the torture." And while he was being racked, Euplius
said, " I thank Thee, O Christ. Guard Thou me, who for Thee
am suffering thus." Calvisianus the consular said, " Cease, Eu
plius, from this folly. Adore the gods, and thou shalt be set
at liberty." Euplius said, " I adore Christ ; I utterly hate the
demons. Do what thou wilt : I am a Christian. Long have
I desired what now I suffer. Do what thou wilt. Add yet
other tortures : I am a Christian." After he had been tortured
a long while, the executioners were bidden hold their hands.
And Calvisianus said, " Unhappy man, adore the gods. Pay
worship to Mars, Apollo, and iEsculapius." Euplius said,
" I worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. I adore
the Holy Trinity, beside Whom there is no God. Perish the
gods who did not make heaven and earth, and all that is in
them. I am a Christian." Calvisianus the prsefect said, " Offer
sacrifice, if thou wouldest be set at liberty." Euplius said, " I
gacrifice myself only to Christ my God : more than this I can
not do. Thy efforts are to no purpose ; I am a Christian."
Calvisianus gave orders that he should be tortured again more
severely. And while he was being tortured, Euplius said,
" Thanks to Thee, O Christ. Help me, O Christ. For Thee do
I suffer thus, O Christ." And he said this repeatedly. And as
his strength gradually failed him, he went on repeating these
or other exclamations, with his lips only—his voice was gone V
d Acta, p. 342 : * Ne inter moras torquentium exclusa anima corpus supplicio
pendente desereret, tali voce Dominum presbyter precabatur : Rogo Chrisfe,
exaudi me. Gratias Tibi ago, Deus : jube me decollari. Rogo Christe,
miserere. Dei Fili, subveni.'
e Ibid. p. 343 : ' Emeritus martyr ait : Bogo, Christe, Tibi lau-
des : libera me Christe, patior in Nomine Tuo. Breviter potior, libenter
potior, Christe Domine ; non confundar.'
f Ruinart, p. 362 ; Acta S. Euplii Diaconi et Martyris, a. 304 : ' Calvisi
anus interlocutus dixit: Euplius qui secundum Edictum Principum non
tradidit Scripturas, sed legit populo, torqueatur. Cumque torqueretur, dixit
Euplius : Gratias Tibi Christe. Me custodi qui propter Te hac jiatior.
VII ] Dd
402 Prayers of the martyrs not chance 'ejaculations!
You cannot, as I have already urged, dismiss from your con
sideration such prayers as these, on the ground of their being
' mere ejaculations.' Do serious men, who know they are dying,
' ejaculate ' at random % Is it at the hour of death that a man
would naturally innovate upon the devotional habits of a life
time J Is it at such an hour that he would make hitherto un-
attempted enterprises into the unseen world, and address himself
to beings with whom he had not before deemed it lawful or
possible to hold spiritual communion ? Is not the reverse of
this supposition notoriously the case 1 Surely, those of us who
have witnessed the last hours of the servants of Christ cannot
hesitate as to the answer. As the soul draws nigh to the gate
of death, the solemnities of the eternal future are wont to cast
their shadows upon the thought and heart ; and whatever is
deepest, truest, most assured and precious, thenceforth engrosses
every power. At that dread yet blessed hour, the soul clings
with a new intensity and deliberation to the most certain truths,
to the most prized and familiar words. The mental creations of
an intellectual over-subtlety, or of a thoughtless enthusiasm, or
of an unbridled imagination, or of a hidden perversity of will,
or of an unsuspected unreality of character, fade away or are
discarded. To gaze upon the naked truth is the one necessity;
to plant the feet upon the Kock Itself, the supreme desire, in
that awful, searching, sifting moment. Often, too, at a man's
last hour, will habit strangely assert its mysterious power of
recovering, as if from the grave, thoughts and memories which
seemed to have been lost for ever. Truths which have been
half forgotten or quite forgotten since childhood, and prayers
which were learned at a mother's knee, return upon the soul
with resistless persuasiveness and force, while the accumula
tions of later years disappear and are lost sight of Depend
Dixit Calvisianus Consularis : Dexiste, Ewpli, ab insania hue. Deos adora
et libcraberis. Euplius dixit : Adoro Christum, dete&tor dmmonia. Fae
quod vis, Christianus sum. Hate diu oplavi. Fac quod vis. Adde alia,
Christianus sum. Postquam diu tortus esset, jussi sunt cessare carnifices.
Et dixit Calvisianus : Miser, adora deos : Martem cole, Apollinem et jEscu-
lapium. Dixit Euplius : Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum adoro :
Sanctam Trinitatem adoro, prater quam non est Deus. Pereant dii qui non
fecerunt cmlum et terram, et quce in eis sunt. Christianus sum. Calvisi
anus prsefeetus dixit : Sacrifica, si vis liberari. Euplius dixit : Sacrifice
modo CHB1ST0 DEO me ipsum : quid ultra faciam, non habeo. Frustra
conaris: Christianus sum. Calvisianus prsecepit iterum torqueri acriiis.
Cumque torqueretur, dixit Euplius : Gratias Tibi, Christe. Succurre Christe.
Propter Te hcec patior Christe. Et dixit scepius. Et deficientibus viribus,
dicebat labiis tantum, absque voce Usee vel alia.'
[lect.
The Arian invocation of Christ. 403
upon it, the martyrs prayed to Jesus in their agony because they
had prayed to Him long before, many of them from infancy ;
because they knew from experience that such prayers were
blessed and answered. They had been taught to pray to Him ;
they had joined in prayers to Him ; they had been taunted and
ridiculed for praying to Him ; they had persevered in praying
to Him ; and when at last their hour of trial and of glory came,
they had recourse to the prayers which they knew full well to be
the secret of their strength, and tbose prayers carried them on
through their agony, to the crown beyond it.
And, further, you will have remarked that the worship of
Jesus by the martyrs was full of the deepest elements of
worship. It was made up of trust, of resignation, of self-
surrender, of self-oblation. Nothing short of a belief in the
absolute Godhead of Jesus could justify such worship. The
Homoousion was its adequate justification. Certainly the Arians
worshipped our Lord, although they rejected the Homoousion.
So clear were the statements of Scripture, so strong and so
universal was the tradition of Christendom, tbat Arianism could
not resist the claims of a practice which was nevertheless at
variance with its true drift and principle. For, as St. Atha-
nasius pointed out, the Arians did in reality worship one whom
they believed to be a being distinct from the Supreme God.
The Arians were creature-worshippers not less than the heathen e.
Some later Arians appear to have attempted to retort the charge
of creature-worship by pointing to the adoration of our Lord's
Humanity in the Catholic Church. But, as St. Athanasius
explains, our Lord's Manhood was adored, not as a distinct and
individual Being, but only as inseparably joined to the ador
able Person of the Everlasting Wordh. To refuse to adore
Christ's Manhood was to imply that after the incarnation men
could truly conceive of It as separate from Christ's Eternal
Person1. There was no real analogy between this worship and
£ St. Athanas. Epist. ad Adelphium, § 3 : oi Kri<Tfia TrporrKvvovfxev, ^
ytvoiro, iOtwcuv yap 'feed 'Apttavwv fi roiafrnj lrXJufif aAAct rbv Ktipiov Trjs ktU
trews trapKuOfvra rbv tov Qeov A6yov wpoffKuvovfifv.
h Ibid. : fi yap Kal tj aap£ aur^i ko(T iavrty ftepos &rrl t&v ktuth&twv, oAAa
0eoi) yiyovs oSipa. Kat otfre rb toiovtov aufia Kaff lamb dtatpovvres airb tov
A6yov irpocFKWovfiei', o&tc Tbv A6yov irpoaKWrjaai OeAovTes fiatcpvvoixfv avrbv
airb ttjs uapKos' eifiSres, KaBa irpoc£iroiuei', rb * 6 A6yos <rctp£ ^yeVeTo,'
tovtov Kal 4v (rapid y*v6fl*vov 4myiv(i(rKOfji.eif 0e<Jp.
1 Ibid. : Tts Toiyapovv otjtws &<ppoiv 4arlv ws Aeyetv tw Kvptw, av6ffra airb
tov a&fJUiTos tva tre izpotTKvv^avi ; k.t.A. Compare Ibid. § 5 : %va Kal toA-
fiwfft (sc. Ariani), oi irpojKvvovnev fifith top Kipiov fiera rrjs <rapnbs,
ciAAtk SiaipoC/icf rb trS>pa Ka\ p.6vu tovtw karpevonev.
VII ] Dd2
404 Early Socinian worship of Christ
the Arian worship of a being who was in no wise associated
with the Essence of God ; and Arianism was either virtually
ditheistic or consciously idolatrous. It was idolatrous, if Christ
was a created being ; it was ditheistic, if He was conceived of
as really Divine, yet distinct in essence from the Essence of the
Fatherk.
The same phenomenon of the vital principle of a heresy being
overridden for a while by the strength of the tradition of
universal Christendom was reproduced, twelve centuries later, in
the case of Socinianism. The earliest Socinians taught that the
Son of God was a mere man, who was conceived of the Holy
Ghost, and was therefore called the Son of God. But they also
maintained that on account of His obedience, He was, after
finishing His work of redemption, exalted to Divine dignity and
honour1. Christians were to treat Him as if He were God :
they were to trust Him implicitly ; they were to adore Him ra.
Faustus Socinus11 zealously insisted upon the duty of adoring
Jesus Christ ; and the Eacovian Catechism expressly asserts
that those who do not call upon or adore Christ are not to be
accounted Christians0. But this was only the archaeology, or at
k St. Athanas. contr. Arian. Orat. ii. § 14, sub fin. p. 482. Orat. iii. § 16,
p. 565, et yap fiii oihws *xei' ^vruv iffri Kriafut Kal wofajjita d
A6yos, 011K e(7Tt 0€i>s a\fi6ivbs, Sih rb elvat avrbv eva tSjv KTLup.i.rteVy ci
Qfbv avrbv ovofid&vtrtv tvTpeirdfievoi napa tup ypatpwv, avdyKij aiirovs
5vo Oeovs, eVa fiev KTltTTijv, rbv Se eVepov KTicrrbv, Kal Suo nvplois Xarpiveiv,
evX jtev aytv4\wp, t$ 5« ereptp ytv-nrQ Kal KriVp-aTt otha 5e tppoifovvres
irdi/Tws Kal ir\dovas avvd^ov(Ti Beois' tovto yap rwy 4Kvea6vruv avb tov et>bs
0eoD rb 4-Ktx^py)^a. Siari oZv oi 'Apeiavol rotavra \oyt(6fiepoi Kal voovmes
ov <Tvvapi6^iov(rtv eavrobs fxtra ruv 'Ek^vwv ;
1 Socin. de Justif. Bibl. Fr. Pol. torn, i fol. 601, col. I.
111 Cat. Racov. : *Qu. 236. Quid prcetered, Dominus Jesus huic prcecepto
addidit 1 Resp. Id quod etiam Dominnm Jesum pro Deo agnoscere tenemur,
id est, pro eo, qui in nos potestatem habet divinam, et cui nos divinum exhibere
honorem obstricti sumus. Qu. 237. In quo is honor divinus Christo debitus con-
Bistit ! Resp. In eo, quod quemadmodum adoratione divina eum prosequi tene
mur, ita in omnibus necessitatibus nostris ejus opem implorare possumus.
Adoramus verb eum propter ipsius subKmem el divinam ejus potestatem.' C£
MShler, Symbolik. Mainz. 1864, p. 609.
n The tenacity of the Christian practice may be still more remarkably
illustrated from the death-cry of Servetus, as given in a MS. account of his
execution, cited by Roscoe, Life of Leo X, c. 1 9. ' Ipse horrendS, voce cla-
mans ; Jesu, Fili Dei ceterni, miserere mei.'
0 Cat. Racov.: ' Qu. 246. Quid verb sentis de its nominibus, qui Christum non
invocant, nec adorandum cement i Resp. Prorsus non esse Christianos sentio,
cum Christum non habeant. Et licet verbis id negare non audeant, reipsS
negant tamen.' In his sermon on ' Satan Transformed,' South quotes Socinus
as saying that ' Prsestat Trinitarium esse, quam asserere Christum non esse
adorandum.'
[ LECT.
abandoned, as resting on antiquarian feeling. 405
most the better feeling of Socinianism. Any such mere feeling
was destined to yield surely and speedily to the logic of a strong
destructive principle. In vain did Blandrata appeal to Faustus
Socinus himselfP, when endeavouring to persuade the Socinians
of Transylvania to adore Jesus Christ : the Transylvanians
would not be persuaded to yield an act of adoration to any
creature <J. In vain did the Socinian Catechism draw a dis
tinction between a higher and a lower worship, of which the
former was reserved for the Father, while the latter was paid to
Christ r. Practically this led on to a violation of the one
positive fundamental principle of Socinianism ; it obscured the
incommunicable prerogatives of the Supreme Being. Accord
ingly, in spite of the texts of Scripture upon which their
worship of Christ was rested by the Socinian theologians, such
worship was soon abandoned ; and the later practice of So
cinians has illustrated the true doctrinal force and meaning of
that adoration which Socinianism refuses, but which the Church
unceasingly offers to Jesus, the Son of God made Man. Of
this worship the only real justification is that full belief in
Christ's Essential Unity with the Father which is expressed by
the Homoousion.
II. But the Homoousion did not merely justify and explain
the devotional attitude of the Church towards Jesus Christ : it
was, in reality, in keeping with the general drift and sense of
her traditional language.
Reference has already been made to the prayers of the
P See Socinus' tractates, Bibl. Frat. Pol. ii. p. 709, sqq.
Q Cf. Mohler, Symbolik, p. 609 ; Bp. Pearson, Minor Works, vol. i. p. 300,
and note. Coleridge's Table Talk, 2nd ed. p. 304 : ' Faustus Socinus wor
shipped Jesus Christ, and said that God had given Him the power of being
omnipresent. Davidi, with a little more acuteness, urged that mere audition
or creaturely presence could not possibly justify worship from men ;—that
a man, how glorified soever, was no nearer God than the most vulgar of the
race. Prayer therefore was inapplicable.' For himself Coleridge says (Ibid,
p. 50), ' In no proper sense of the term can I call Unitarians and Socinians
believers in Christ ; at least not in the only Christ of Whom I have read or
know anything.'
* Cat. Rac. : ' Qu. 245. Ergo is honor et eidtus ad eum modum tribuitur,
vt nullum sit inter Christum et Veum hoc in genere discrimen ! Resp. Into,
permagnum est. . Nam adoramus et colimus I)eum, tanquam causam primam
salutis nostra ; Christum tanquam causam secundam ; aut ut cum Paulo
loquamur, Deum tanquam Eum ex quo omnia, Chrislum ut eum per quern
omnia.' Cf. Bibl. Frat. Pol. torn. ii. fol. 466, qu. by Mohler, Symbolik, p. 609.
Mohler observes that ' man sieht dass an Christus eine Art von Invocation
gerichtet wird, die mit der Katholischen Anrufung der Heiligen einige
Aehnlichkeit hat.'
VII ] -
406 Explicit confessions of Chrisfs Divinity
primitive martyrs ; hut the martyrs professed in terms their
belief in Christ's divinity, as frequently as they implied that
belief by their adorations of Christ. This is the more observ
able because it is at variance with the suggestions by which
those who do not share the faith of the martyrs, sometimes
attempt to account for the moral spectacle which martyrdom
presents. It has been said that the martyrs did not bear witness
to any definite truth or dogma ; that the martyr-temper, so to
term it, was composed of two elements, a kind of military en
thusiasm for an unseen Leader, and a strange unnatural desire
to brave physical suffering ; that the prayers uttered by the
martyrs were the product of this compound feeling, but that
such prayers did not imply any defined conceptions respecting
the rank and powers of Him to Whom they were addressed.
Now, without denying that the martyrs were sustained by
a strictly supernatural contempt for pain, or that their devotion
to our Lord was of the nature of an intense personal attach
ment which could not brook the least semblance of slight or
disloyalty, or that they had not analysed their intellectual appre
hension of the truth before them in the manner of the divines
of the Nicene age, I nevertheless affirm that the martyrs did
suffer on behalf of a doctrine which was dearer to them than
life. The Christ with Whom they held such close and passionate
communion, and for Whose honour they shed their blood, was
not to them a vague floating idea, or a being of whose rank and
powers they imagined themselves to be ignorant. If there be
one doctrine of the faith which they especially confessed at
death, it is the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity. This truth was
not only confessed by bishops and presbyters. Philosophers,
like Justin8; soldiers, such as Maurice*, and Tarachus", and
* Apol. apud Auct. Chron. Pasch. (Gall. torn. i. p. 678) : ovit ifffuv XlBwv
ovUefitav aXadiiiriv 4x^PTUt/ fopaawral, aWa p.6vov 0eoiJ rov npb -navTwy Kal
ivl irdvTtov, xai %ri tov XpurTov ainov ovros 0eoO A6yov irpb aXdivwv ifffuv
OpjI&KcvTat. Routh, Kel. Sacr. i. 118, 133.
8 Adv. Haer. iii. 6, n. 3.
' Ibid. iii. 6, n. 1 : ' Nemo igitur alius Deus nominatur, aut Dominus
appellator nisi qui est omnium Deus et Dominus, qui et Moysi dixit, Ego
sum Qui sum, et Hujus Filius Jesus Christus.' Cf. iii. 8, n. 3 : ' Deus
Solus.'
k Ibid. iii. 19, n. 2 : ' Quoniam autem Ipse propria prater omnes qui
fuerunt tunc homines, Deus, et Dominus, et Rex ^iternus et Unigenitus, et
Verbum Incarnatum praedicatur, et a prophetis omnibus et apostolis, et ab
ipso Spiritu, adest videre omnibus qui vel modicum veritatis attigerint."
h Ibid. iii. 9, 2. 'Thus [obtulerunt magi] quoniam Deus.'
1 Ibid. v. 17, n. 3. k Ibid. iii. 18, 7.
1 Protrept. 10 : iri&Ttvvov, fodpunc, avBptancp Kal 0e£, t$ nadSvri Kal vpoff-
KVVOVfJ.4v(p 06$ £toVTl,
m Ibid. i. : aurbt outos 4 A6yos, i p.6vos &fi(pa, 0e<is tc Kal &j/8punros,
andvTwv tj/xiv oXtios ayaQwv.
a Strom, ii. 9: 0e$ t$ %urrijpi ; Ibid. v. 6: 6 ®ebs "Zarfyp KtKKrifievos, rj
twv '6\(jcv apxht %tis ojrtiK6vto-Tai pXv eV tov 0eoC tov aopdrov TtptZyrr\ Kal vpb
VII ]
4H Chrisfs Deity taught by Origen,
Author and Archetype of all existing beings. Clement alludes
to our Lord's Divinity as explaining His equality with the
Father °, His prescience during His Human Life p, His revela
tion of the Father to meni. Origen maintains Christ's true
Divinity against the contemptuous criticisms of Celsus r. Origen
more than once uses the expression 'the God Jesus8.' He
teaches that the Word, the Image of God, is God * ; that the
Son is as truly Almighty as the Father u ; that Christ is the
Very Word, the Absolute Wisdom, the Absolute Truth, the
Absolute Kighteousness Itself1. Christ, according to Origen,
possesses all the attributes of Deity y ; God is contemplated in
the contemplation of Christ z. Christ's Incarnation is like the
economical language of parables which describe Almighty God
as if He were a human being. So real is Christ's Deity, that
His assumption of our Nature, like the speech of a parable, is
to be looked upon as only a condescension to finite intelligences a.
There is no Highest Good in existence which is superior to
Christ b ; as Very God, Christ is present in all the world ; He
is present with every man0. Origen continually closes his
TtiToi, Sri Svm/itv TOffavrnv €Xei, 6s tal aiparos eTvat rfi SfiSrrrri avrov,
vapbiv travrl avOpt&ircp, Travr\ Se teal t£ '6\q icda/up ovinrapGKreiv6nsvos.
d Contr. Cels. iii. 29.
8 Apol. c. 21 : ' Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, et prolatione genera-
tum, et idcireo Filium Dei, et Deum dictum imitate substantia.' Ibid.:
' Quod de Deo profectum est, Deus est, et Dei Filius, et Unus ambo.' Adv.
Prax. 4: * Filium non aliunde deduco, sed de substantia Patris.' Ibid. 3 :
* Consortibus [Filio et Spiritu Sancto] substantias Patris.'
f Adv. Prax. 7 : 1 Solus ex Deo genitus.'
s Adv. Jud. 7: 'Christus omnibus Deus et Dominus est.' Cf. c. 12.
h Cf. De Came Christi, c. 3, 4.
1 Adv. Marc. ii. 27: 'Deum crucifixum.'
k Ad Uxor. ii. 3 : ' Non sumus nostri, sed pretio empti, et quali pretio ?
Sanguine Dei.'
1 Adv. Marc. ii. 16: ' Cbristianorum est etiam Deum mortuum credere, et
tamen viventem in sevo sevorum.'
m Ep. 73, ad Jubaiamim, 12: 'Si peccatorum remissam consecutus est ... .
et templum Dei factum est, qusero cujus Dei ? Si Creatoris, non potuit in
eum qui non credidit. Si Christi, nec ejus fieri potest templum qui negat
Deum Christum.' Cf. Ep. 74, c. 6: 'Quae verb est animse csecitas, quae
pravitas, fidei unitatem de Deo Patre, et de Jesu Christi Domini et Dei
nostri traditione venientem nolle agnoscere,' &c.
* Adv. Jud. c. 6: ®ebs &v aAnBivies. Contr. Noet. c. 6: oStoj 6 tiv M
•jravruiv 0e6i ivriv yap oUtw fxera irafifitiffias' Tl&vra fioi TropaSeSorai
inrb tov Tlarp6s. ' & &v 4vl TrivTwy Qebs evKoyrjTbs,' yeyeyTjratr nal &v6potvos
VII ]
416 Various indirect testimonies ofthe third century.
pagan mind by dint of constant repetition °. Theonas of Alex
andria instructs a candidate for the imperial librarianship how
he may gradually teach it to his pagan master p. Dionysius
of Alexandria vehemently repudiates as a cruel scandal the
report of his having denied it 1. St. Peter of Alexandria would
prove it from an examination of Christ's miracles r. For the
rest, St. Methodius of Tyre may represent the faith of western
Asia 8 ; the martyred Felix that of the Roman chair * ; and,
to omit other illustrations u, the letter of the council to Paulus
of Samosata summarizes the belief both of eastern and western
Christendom during the latter half of the third century x.
This language of the preceding centuries does in effect and
substance anticipate the Nicene decision. When once the
question of Christ's Divinity had been raised in the metaphysical
form which the Homoousion presupposes, no other answer was
possible, unless the Nicene fathers had been prepared to renounce
yev6u.evos, Qt6s itrrai th robs aluvas. Apud Routh, Opusc. i. p. 59. And
c. 17: ®ebs \6yos ait' ovpavuv Karr\\Bev els t^jp aylav napBevov. Adv.
Beron. et Helic. n. 2 : yiyovev &vBpuiros i tup 'ikuv @eis. So in Eus. v. 28,
He is called our eCmrAayx"01
0 Adv. Gent. ii. 60 : ' Ideo Christus, licet vobia invitis, Deus ; Deus
inquam Christus—hoc enim ssepe dicendum est, ut infidelium dissiliat et
disrumpatur auditns—Dei principis jussione loquens sub hotninis forma.'
Ibid. i. 53 : 1 Dens ille sublimis fuit ; Deus radice ab intima, Deus ab incog-
nitis regnis, et ab omnium principe Dens sospitator est missus.'
P Apud Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii. p. 443 ; Ep. ad Lucian. Cubicul. Praepos. c.
7 : ' Interdum et divinas scripturas laudare conabitur laudabitur et
interim Evangelium Apostolusque pro divinis oraculis : insurgere poterit
Christi mentio, explicabitur paullatim ejus sola Divinitas.'
1 Ep. ad Dionys. Rom. apud S. Athan. Op. torn. i. p. 255 : ko! Si" &\\ris
4irt<rTo\rjs. Zypatya, 4v ols tf\eyta Kal b irpotpepovoiv eyKKijua kilt* ifjiov, tytvSos
hv, us ov Xiyovros rbv Xpiffrbv bfioovaiov ilvai t£ ©e<£.
' Apud Routh, Rel. Sac. iv. 48 : to Si <ntp.ua iraWa a iiroiriae Kal at
ovvauus SeiKfvfftv avrdv @ebv clvai ivavBpuiriiaavTa. to o-uvau.<p6Tepa rotvvv
ttitcvvrai' '6tl Qebs ijv tpvaei, Kal ytyovtv avBpuiros <p6trei,
■ De Symeon. et Ann&, n. 6 : 5i> ®ebs vpuros, %nirpoaBhi aov ovk iyevv^Bji
debs &\\os £k 0€oC Tlarpbs, Kal jUera aov ovk etrrai &K\os Tibs t$ ITarpi
buooiiaios Kal dfidri/jLos. n. 8 : 01a rov fiovoyevovs Kal aitapaWdKrov Kal
bfioovo-lov VlatS6s aov r^v Xvrpuatv rjfitv iroit]o-dp.ivos. n. 14 : (pus ahijOtybv 4k
(purbs aAridvov, @ebs aK-qBivbs 4k ®eoC aAijflirou. Quoted by Klee.
' Ep. ad Maximin. Epp. et Cler. Alex. : ' De Verbi autem Incarnatione et
fide credimus in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, ex Virgine Maria
natum, quod Ipse e3t sempiternus Dei Filius et Verbum, non autem homo a
Deo assumptus, ut alius sit ab Mo ; neque enim hominem assumpsit Dei
Filius, ut alius ab ipso exsistat. Sed cum perfectus Deus esset, factus est
simul Homo Perfectus ex Virgine Incarnatus.' Labbe et Coss. Cone. iii. 511.
0 Cf. more especially St. Greg. Thaumatuvgi, Orat. Panegyr. in Origenem,
n. 4; Lact. Div. Inst. iv. 22, 29. 1 Labbe, i. 845-850.
[ LECT.
Is the language of the Fathers 'mere rhetoric?' 417
the most characteristic teaching of their predecessors. Certainly
it did not occur to them that the Catholic language of earlier
writers had been ' mere rhetoric,' and could, as such, be disre
garded. What is the real meaning of this charge of 1 rhetoric'
which is brought so freely against the early Christian fathers t
It really amounts to saying that a succession of men who were
at least intelligent and earnest, were nevertheless, when writing
upon the subject which lay nearest to their hearts, wholly unable
to command that amount of jealous self-control, and cautious
accuracy in the use of language, which might save them from
misrepresenting their most fundamental convictions. Let us
ask ourselves whether this judgment be morally probable 1
Doubtless the fathers felt strongly, and, being sincere men, they
wrote as they felt. But they were not always exhorting or
declaiming or perorating : they wrote, at times, in the temper of
cold unimpassioned reasoners, who had to dispute their ground
inch by inch with pagan or heretical opponents. Tertullian is
not always 'fervid;' St. Chrysostom is not always eloquent;
Origen does not allegorize under all circumstances ; St. Ambrose
can interpret Scripture literally and morally as well as mystically.
The fathers were not a uniform series of poets or transcenden-
talists. Many of them were eminently practical, or, if you will,
prosaic ; and they continually wrote in view of hostile criticism,
as well as in obedience to strong personal convictions. To men
like Justin, Origen, and Cyprian the question of the Divinity of
our Lord was one of an interest quite as pressing and practical
as any that moves the leaders of political or commercial or scien
tific opinion in the England of to-day. And when men write
with their lives in their hands, and moreover believe that the
endless happiness of their fellow-creatures depends in no slight
degree upon the conscientious accuracy with which they express
themselves, they are not likely to yield to the temptation of
writing for the miserable object of mere rhythmical effect ;—they
may say what others deem strong and startling things without
being, in the depreciatory sense of the term, ' rhetorical.'
But,—to be just,—those who insist most eagerly upon the
'rhetorical' shortcomings of the fathers, are not accustomed to
deny to them under all circumstances the credit of writing with
intelligence and upon principle. If, for example, a father uses
expressions, however inadvertently or provisionally, which appear
to contradict the general current of Church teaching, he is at
once welcomed as a serious writer who is entitled to marked and
respectful attention. Critics who lay most stress upon the
vii ] ee
4i 8 Doubtful statements in ante-Nicene writers.
charge of unprincipled rhetoric as brought against the fathers
are often anxious to take advantage of the argument which
screens the fathers and which they themselves reject. 'Give
that argument,' they say, 'its full and honest scope. If the Nicene
fathers were not mere rhetoricians, neither were the ante-Nicene.
If Athanasius, Basil, and the Gregories are to be taken at their
word, so are Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, and their contem
poraries. If the orthodox language of one period is not rhetoric,
then the doubtful or unorthodox language of another period is
not rhetoric. If for the moment we admit the principle upon
which you are insisting, we claim that it shall be applied impar
tially,—to the second century as to the fourth, to the language
which is said to favour Arius, no less than to the language which
is insisted upon by the friends of Athanasius.'
' Is it not notorious,' men ask, ' that some ante-Nicene writers
at times use language which falls short of, if it does not contra
dict, the doctrine of the Nicene Council ? Does not St. Justin
Martyr, for instance, speak of the Son as subserving the Father's
Will y ? nay, as being begotten of Him at His Will z ? Does not
Justin even speak of Christ as "another God under the Creator^"
Do not Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, and St. Hippolytus
apply the language of Scripture respecting the generation of the
Word to His manifestation at the creation of the world, as a dis
tinct being from God 1 Do they not so distinguish between the
\6yos cvbiaBervs and the Xoyos npofyopmbs as to imply that the
Word was hypostatized only at the creation0? Does not Clement
of Alexandria implicitly style the Word the Second Principle of
things c 1 Does he not permit himself to say that the Nature of
the Son is most close to the Sole Almighty Oned? Although
Origen first spoke of the Saviour as being " ever-begotten e," has
he not, amidst much else that is questionable, contrasted the
Son, as the immediate Creator of the world, with the Father as
the original Creator f? Did hot Dionysius of Alexandria use
y Tryph. 126: iirripniiv $ov\fi alrov. Cf. Athan. Treat, i. 118, note n.
1 Ibid. 128. But cf. Athan. Treat, ii. p. 486, note jr.
* Dial, contr. Tryph. c. 56: &ebs tT€pos virb tbv itoirfrifti.
b Petav. 3. 6; Newman's Arians, p. 106. But see Athan. Treat, i. 113,
note z ; and Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 5. 6. 7, 8.
c Strom, lib. vii. 3, p. 50Q, apud Pet.: dtirepov alriov.
d Ibid. 2, p. 504: t] Tiov tyvffis, rj t£ p.6uta TlavroKp&ropi 7^po<^€Xf^^^c"'7^
Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 6, 6.
6 d 2a>T^p aet yevvarai. Apud Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. 354.
* Orig. contr. Cels. vi. 60, apud Petav. de Trin. i. 4, 5 : rbv ply irpoaextis
Srifuovpybv elvai rbv Tlbv tov ®euv A6yov Kal aairepd avrovpybv rod k6<T{ju>v'
Tbv Se Tlarepa .... tlvai irpcSrccs dTjfiiovpy6v.
[ LECT.
Doubtful statements in ante-Nicene writers. 419
language which he was obliged to account for, and which is re
pudiated by St. Basil e 1 Was not Lucian of Antioch excommu
nicated, and, martyr though he was, regarded as the founder of
an heterodox sect h t Is not Tertullian said to be open to the
charge that he combated Praxeas with arguments which did.
the work of Arius ! ? Has he not, in his anxiety to avoid the
Monarchianist confusion of Persons, spoken of the Son as a
"derivation from, and portion of, the whole Substance of the
Father k," or even as if once He was not 1 1 Does any Catholic
writer undertake to apologise for the expressions of Lactantius 1
Has not recent criticism tended somewhat to enhance the repu
tation of Petavius at the expense of Bishop Bull m ? Nay, is not
Bull's great work itself an illustration of what is at least the
primd facie state of the case ? Does it not presuppose a consider
able apparent discrepancy between some ante-Nicene and the
post-Nicene writers ? Is it not throughout explanatory and apo
logetic ? Can we deny that out of the long list of writers whom
Bull reviews, he has, for one cause or another, to explain the
language of nearly one-half? '
This line of argument in an earlier guise has been discussed
so fully by a distinguished predecessor n in the present Lecture,
that it may suffice to notice very summarily the considerations
which must be taken into account, if justice is to be done, both
to its real force and to the limits which ought to be, but which
are not always, assigned to it.
(a) Undoubtedly, it should be frankly granted that some of
the ante-Nicene writers do at times employ terms which, judged
by a Nicene standard, must be pronounced unsatisfactory. You
might add to the illustrations which have already been quoted ;
and you might urge that, if they admit of a Catholic interpreta
tion, they do not always invite one. For in truth these ante-
8 Cf. Pet. de Trin. i. 4, 10 ; St. Bas. Ep. 9. But cf. Athan. Sent. Dion.
h Alexander ap. Theodoret. Hist. lib. i. c. 4 ; Pet. de Trin. i. 4, 13.
1 Petavius attacks him especially on the score of this treatise. De Trin. i.
5, 1 : ' Opinionem explicat suam,' says Petavius, ' qua? etiam Ariannrum
hseresim impietate et absurditate superat.' For a fairer estimate, see Klee,
Dogmengeschichte, ii. c. 2.
k Adv. Prax. c. 9 : ' Pater enim tota Substantia est, Filius verb derivatio
totius et portio.' See the remarks of Baur, Dogmengeschichte, i. 444, to
which, however, a study of the context will yield a sufficient answer ; e. g.
c. 8 : ' Sermo in Patre semper nunquam separatus a Patre.'
1 Adv. Hermog. c. 3. See Bull, Def. iii. 10. Comp. Ibid. ii. 7.
m The writer himself would on no account be understood to assent to this
opinion. Even in criticizing Bull, Dr. Newman admits that he does his
work 'triumphantly.' Developm. p. 159. n Dr. Burton.
vii ] ee 2
420 Someante-Nicenewriters who heldtheperfectfaith
Nicene fathers were feeling their way, not towards the substance
of the faith, which they possessed in its fulness, but towards
that intellectual mastery both of its relationship to outer forms
of thought, and of its own internal harmonies and system, which
is obviously a perfectly distinct gift from the simple possession
of the faith itself. As Christians they possessed the faith itself.
The faith, delivered once for all, had been given to the Church
in its completeness by the apostles. But the finished interlectual
survey and treatment of the faith is a superadded acquirement ;
it is the result of conflict with a hostile criticism, and of devout
reflections matured under the guidance of the Spiritual Truth.
Knowledge of the drift and scope of particular lines of specula
tion, knowledge of the real force and value of a new terminology,
comes, whether to a man or to a society, in the way of education
and after the discipline of partial and temporary failure. Heresy
indirectly contributed to form the Church's mind : it gave point
and sharpness to current conceptions of truth by its mutilations
and denials ; it illustrated the fatal tendencies of novel lines of
speculation, or even of misleading terms ; it unwittingly forced
on an elucidation of the doctrines of the Church by its subtle
and varied opposition. But before heresy had thus accomplished
its providential work, individual Church teachers might in per
fect good faith attempt to explain difficulties, or to win op
ponents, by enterprising speculations, in this or that direction,
which were not yet shewn to be perilous to truth. Not indeed
that the Universal Church, in her collective capacity, was ever
committed to any of those less perfect statements of doctrine
which belong to the ante-Nicene period. Particular fathers or
schools of thought within her might use terms and illustrations
which she afterwards disavowed ; but then, they had no Divine
guarantee of inerrancy, such as had been vouchsafed to the entire
body of the faithful. They were in difficult and untried circum
stances ; they were making experiments in unknown regions of
thought ; their language was tentative and provisional. Com
pared with the great fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries,
who spoke when collective Christendom had expressed or was
expressing its mind in the (Ecumenical Councils, and who there
fore more nearly represented it, and were in a certain sense its
accepted organs, such ante-Nicene writers occupy a position
inferior, if not in love and honour, yet certainly in weight of
authority. If without lack of reverence to such glorious names
the illustration is permissible, the Alexandrian teachers of the
second and third centuries were, relatively to their successors of
[ LECT.
had not mastered all its intellectual bearings. 421
the age of the Councils, in the position of young or half-educated
persons, who know at bottom what they mean, who know yet
more distinctly what they do not mean, but who as yet have not
so measured and sounded their thoughts, or so tested the instru
ment by which thought finds expression, as to avoid misrepre
senting their meaning more or less considerably, before they
succeed in conveying it with accuracy. When, for example,
St. Justin, and after him Tertullian, contrast the visibility of the
Son with the invisibility of the Father, all that their language is
probably intended to convey is that the Son had from everlasting
designed to assume a nature which would render Him visible.
When again St. Justin speaks of the Son as a Minister of God,
this expression connects Him without explanation with the
ministering Angel of the Old Testament. Yet it need involve
nothing beyond a reference to His humiliation in the days of His
Flesh. A like interpretation may fairly be put upon the ultra-
subordinationist terms used by Origen and Tertullian in dealing
with two forms of heretical Monarchianism ; and upon the mis
construed phrases of the saintly Dionysius which expressed
his resistance to a full-blown Sabellianism °. Language was
employed which obviously admitted of being misunderstood. It
would not have been used at a later period. ' It may be,' says
St. Jerome, with reference to some of the ante-Nicene fathers,
' that they simply fell into errors, or that they wrote in a sense
distinct from that which lies on the surface of their writings,
or that the copyists have gradually corrupted their writings.
Or at any rate before that Arius, like "the sickness that de-
stroyeth in the noonday," was born in Alexandria, these writers
spoke, in terms which meant no harm, and which were less
cautious than such as would be used now, and which accord
ingly are open to the unfriendly construction which ill-disposed
persons put upon them p.'
Indeed it is observable that the tentative and perplexing
Christological language which was used by earlier fathers, at
a time when the quicksands of religious thought had not yet
been explored by the shipwrecks of heresy, does not by any
e Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 2S. It is probable that St. Hippolytus wrote 'The
Little Labyrinth.'
[ LECT.
Was the Homoousion a 'development?' 427
that the Nicene decision is an assertion of the truth of God,
why should we hesitate to adopt a similar belief respecting that
proclamation of the sinless conception of the Blessed Virgin
which startled Christendom twelve years ago, and which has
since that date been added to the official creed of the largest
section of the Christian Church?'
Here, the first point to be considered turns on a question of
words. What do we mean by a doctrinal development 1 Do we
mean an explanation of an already existing idea or belief, pre
sumably giving to that belief greater precision and exactness in
our own or other minds, but adding nothing whatever to its
real area 1 % Or do we mean the positive substantial growth of
the belief itself, whether through an enlargement from within,
just as the acorn developes into the oak, or through an accretion
from without of new intellectual matter gathered around it, like
the aggrandisements whereby the infant colony developes into
the powerful empire ?
f In this sense a Development of Doctrine must necessarily be admitted.
When the life of the individual soul is vigorous and healthy, there must be
a continuously increasing knowledge of Divine Truth. St. Aug. in Joan. Ev.
Tract, xiv. c. 3. n. 5 : ' Crescat ergo Deus qui semper perfectus est, crescat
in te. QuantS enim magis intelligis Deum, et quantii magis capis, videtur in
te crescere Deus ; in se autem non crescit, sed semper perfectus est. Intel-
ligebas heri modicum; intelligis hodie amplius, intelliges eras multo amplius:
lumen ipsum Dei crescit in te ; ita velut Deus crescit, qui semper perfectus
manet. Quemadmodum si curarentur alicujus oculi ex pristine caecitate, et
inciperet videre paululum lucis, et aliS die plus videret, et terti& die amplius,
vidt retur ill! lux crescere : lux tamen perfecta est, sive ipse videat, sive non
videat. Sic est et interior homo : proficit quidem in Deo, et Deus in illo
videtur crescere ; ipse tamen minuitur, ut a gloria suS. decidat, et in gloriam
Dei surgat.' A somewhat analogous progress in the knowledge of Truth,
received from Christ and His Apostles, is found in the collective Christian So
ciety. Vincent. Lerinens. Commonit. c. 28 : 'Nullusne ergb in EcclesiS Dei
profectus ? Habeatur plane et maximus : nam quis ille est tam invidus homi-
nibus, tam exosus Deo, qui illud prohibere conetur? Crescat igitur oportet, et
multum vehementerque proficiat tam singulorum quara omnium, tam unius
hominis quam totius ecclesise sctatum ac sseculorum gradibus, intelligently,
scientifi, sapiential Not that this increasing apprehension of the true force and
bearings of the truth revealed in its fulness once for all involves any addition
to or subtraction from that one unchanging body of truth. Commonit. c. 30 :
'Fas est enim ut prisca ilia coelestis philosophise dogmata processu temporis
excurentur, limentur, poliantur; sed nefas est ut commutentur, nefas ut
detruncentur, nefas ut mutilentur. Accipiant licet evidentiam, lucem, dis-
tinctionem ; sed retineant necesse est plenitudinem, integritatem, proprieta-
tem.' There is then no real increase in the body of truth committed to the
Church, but only a clearer perception on the part of the Church of the force
and bearings of that truth which she had possessed in its completeness
from the first. With some few drawbacks, this is fairly stated by Stauden-
maier. Wetzer and Welte's Diction. Encycl.; art Dogme.
VII ]
428 True sense of the New Testament
Now if it be asked, which is the natural sense of the word
' development,' I reply that we ordinarily mean by it an actual
enlargement of that which is said to be developed. And in that
sense I proceed to deny that the Homoousion was a develop
ment. It was not related to the teaching of the apostles as an
oak is related to an acorn. Its real relation to their teaching
was that of an exact and equivalent translation of the language
of one intellectual period into the language of another. The
New Testament had taught that Jesus Christ is the Lord of
nature S and of men n, of heaven, and of the spiritual world > ;
that He is the world's Legislator, its King and its Judge k ; that
He is the Searcher of hearts the Pardoner of sins m, the Well-
spring of life n ; that He is Giver of true blessedness and salva
tion °, and the Eaiser of the dead p ; it distinctly attributed to
Him omnipresence % omnipotence r, omniscience 8 ; eternity *,
absolute likeness to the Father11, absolute oneness with the
Fatherx, an equal share in the honour due to the Fathery, a like
claim upon the trust z, the faith a, and the love b of humanity.
The New Testament had spoken of Him as the Creator0 and
Preserver of the world d, as the Lord of all things, as the King
of kings e, the Distributor of all graces f, the Brightness of the
s St.John v. 17 ; St. Matt. viii. 3, 13 ; ix. 6, 22, 25, 29 ; St. John iv. 50;
v. 8. This power over nature He delegated to others : St. Matt. x. I, 8 ;
St. Mark xvi. 17; St.Lukex. 17; St. John xiv. 12; Acts iii. 6, 12, 16; ix.
34 ; xvi. 18. h St. Matt, xxviii. 18-20; St. John v. 21, 22 ; xvii. 2.
1 St. Matt. vii. 21, 23 ; xviii. 18 ; xxvi. 64; St. John. i. 51 ; xx. 12, &c.
1 St. Matt, v.— vii. ; xi. 29, 30 ; xv. 18 ; xviii. 19 ; xxv. 34, 40; St. John
viii. 36 ; xiv. 21 ; xv. 12 ; xx. 23, &c.
1 St. John i. 47-50 ; ii. 24, 25 ; iv. 17, 18 ; vi. 15, 70 ; xvi. 19, 32 ; Rev.
ii. 23.
m St. Matt. ix. 2, 6 ; St. Luke v. 20, 24 ; vii. 48 ; xxiv. 47 ; and St. John
xx. 23 , where He delegates the absolving power to others.
n St. John iv. 13, 14; v. 21, 26, 40 ; vi. 47, 51-58; x. 28.
0 St. Matt. vii. 21 sq.; St. John vi. 39, 40; x. 28; Acts iv. 12; Heb. ii.10,14.
v St. John v. 21, 25 ; xi. 25. Christ raises Himself from death : St. John
ii. 19 ; x. 18. 1 Ibid. iii. 13 ; St. Matt, xviii. 20.
* St. Matt, xxviii. 18 ; Phil. iii. 21 ; Heb. i. 3.
■ St. Matt. xi. 27 ; St. John iii. 11-13 ; vi. 46 ; x. 15 ; Col. ii. 3.
* St. John viii. 58 ; xvii. 5 ; Rev. i. 8 ; ii. 8 ; xxii. 12, 13.
n St. John v. 17, 19, 21, 26 ; x. 28, 29 ; xiv. 7.
1 Ibid. x. 28, 30 ; xiv. 10. 1 Ibid. v. 23.
1 Ibid. xiv. 1 ; xvi. 33 ; Col. i. 27 ; St. Matt. xii. 21.
a St. John vi. 27 ; 1 St. John iii. 23 ; Acts xvi. 31 ; xx, 21.
b I Cor. xvi. 22 ; St. John xiv. 23.
c St. John L 3 ; Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10. d Col. i. 17 ; Heb. i. 3.
e Acts x. 36 ; Jude 4 ; Rev. xvii. 14 ; xix. 16.
' St. John i. 12, 14, 16, 17; 2 Thess. ii. 16.
[ LECT.
embodied in the Homoousion. 429
Father's Glory and the Impress of His Being s ; as being in the
form of God *>, as containing in Himself all the fulness of the
Godhead *, as being God K This and much more to the same
purpose had been said in the New Testament. When therefore
the question was raised whether Jesus Christ was or was not
'of one substance with' the Father, it became clear that of two
courses one ,must be adopted. Either an affirmative answer
must be given, or the teaching of the apostles themselves must
be explained away1. As a matter of fact the Nicene fathers
only affirmed, in the philosophical language of the fourth
century, what our Lord and the apostles had taught in the
popular dialects of the first. If then the Nicene Council
developed, it was a development by explanation. It was a deve
lopment which placed the intrinsically unchangeable dogma,
committed to the guardianship of the Church, in its true relation
to the new intellectual world that had grown up around Chris
tians in the fourth century. Whatever vacillations of thought
might have been experienced here or there, whatever doubtful
expressions might have escaped from theologians of the inter
vening period, no real doubt could be raised as to the meaning
of the original teachers of Christianity, or as to the true drift
and main current of the continuous traditional belief of the
Church. The Nicene divines interpreted in a new language the
belief of their first fathers in the faith. They did not enlarge
it ; they vehemently protested that they were simply preserving
and handing on what they had received. The very pith of their
objection to Arianism was its novelty : it was false because it
was of recent origin™. They themselves were forced to say what
they meant by their creed, and they said it. Their explanation
added to the sum of authoritative ecclesiastical language, but it
did not add to the number of articles in the Christian faith : the
area of the creed was not enlarged. The Nicene Council did not
vote a new honour to Jesus Christ which He had not before
vii ]
LECTUEE VIII.
m St. Athanasius comments as follows upon St. Mark xiii. 32, oiSe d YiSs.
Contr. Arian. Or. iii. c. 44 : 81a touto koJ irep! ayye\ui> \4yav ovk etpriKev
ivavafialvwv, JJti ouSe rb ili/evfia rb &ytov, a\\' itncfarri<r€, SeiKvvs Kara Svo
ravTUf '6tl ei rb JlvcD/m olSw, iro\A# /xaAAo? & A6yos $ \6yos icrrlv olSe, irop*
o5 teal rb Hvfvfia Aap.jSaVet, xal 8Y1 trepl tov Tlvei/xaTos ffiwir-haas tpavspbv
ireiroljjKev, '6ti irepX rijs dvOpconlyris avrov Xtnovpyias eKeyev ou5e d Y«Js* «al
roinov rtKpA\piovt SVt avGpoyirlvus eipyKuis, otitis i Tibs oTSe, bciKvvffiv Hp-ws
BetKus eavrbv Ta vdyra elSrfra. bv yhp \tyti Tibv r^v Tifiipav frij eitieyai, tovtov
etSeVcu Keyei rbv ITaTepa' oi>5tif y&p, tprurl, yiv<l>(TK*t rbv Ilartpa ei p.^ 6 Yl6s.
7rSs 5e ir\$iv tuv 'Apeuwav txvvopoXoyfio-eiev, ws 6 rbv Tlarepa yiv&aKav 7ro\\(p
fiaWov olSey T^r Krleeas rb '6\ovt eV 5e t$ flXip ko! Tb re\os iarl Tavnjs.
Olshausen observes, in Ev. Matt. xxiv. 36, Comm. f. p. 909 : ' 1st aber
vom Sohne Gottes hier die Rede, so kann das von ibm pradicirte Nichtwissen
der vnepa und Spa kein absolutes seyn indem die Wesememheit des Valers
und da Sohnes das Wissen des Sohnes und des Vaters nicht specifisch zu
trennen gestattet ; es muss vieltnehr nur von dem Zustande der nivtecns des
Herrn in Stande seiner Niedrigkeit verstanden werden.'
" St. Luke ii. 52 : 'lijaovs irpoe'/foirre aotplq koI ^Ai/cfa.
[ LECT.
Our Lord's 'growth in knowledge? 457
Jesus as ' being filled with wisdom °,' and St. John teaches that
as the Word Incarnate, Jesus was actually ' full of truth.' St.
John means not only that our Lord was veracious, but that He
was fully in possession of objective truth p. It is clearly implied
that, according to St. John, this fulness of truth was an element
of that glory which the first disciples beheld or contemplated 1.
This statement appears to be incompatible with the supposition
that the Human Soul of Jesus, through spiritual contact with
which the disciples 'beheld' the glory of the Eternal Word,
was Itself not ' full of truth.' St. John's narrative does not
admit of our confining this ' fulness of truth ' to the later days
of Christ's ministry, or to the period which followed His Ee-
surrection. There are then two representations before us, one
suggesting a limitation of knowledge, the other a fulness of
knowledge in the human soul of Christ In order to harmonize
these statements, we need not fall hack upon the vulgar ration
alistic expedient of supposing that between St. John's represen
tation of our Lord's Person, and that which is given in the three
first Gospels, there is an intrinsic and radical discrepancy. If
we take St. John's account together with that of St. Luke,
might it not seem that we have here a special instance of that
tender condescension, by which our Lord willed to place Him
self in a relation of real sympathy with the various experiences
of our finite existence ? If by an infused knowledge He was,
even as a Child, ' full of truth,' yet that He might enter with
the sympathy of experience into the various conditions of our
intellectual life, He would seem to have acquired, by the slow
labour of observation and inference, a new mastery over truths
which He already, in another sense, possessed. Such a co
existence of growth in knowledge with a possession of all its
ultimate results would not be without a parallel in ordinary
human life. In moral matters, a living example may teach
with a new power some law of conduct, the truth of which we
have before recognised intuitively. In another field of know
ledge, the telescope or the theodolite may verify a result of
which we have been previously informed by a mathematical
calculation r. We can then conceive that the reality of our
0 St. Luke ii. 40 : irXtipoififvov oofyias.
P St. John i. 14: uAfywjs x<fy>wos *ol aKi)Btlas.
* 1 Ibid. : i&eatjaiJLzQa r^v Sofa*/ avrov.
' In the same way, every man's stock of opinions is of a twofold character ;
it is partly traditional and partly acquired by personal investigation and
thought. The traditionally received element in the mind, may be held, as
such, with the utmost tenacity ; and yet there is a real ' increase in wis
VIII]
458 Our Lord's statement in St. Mark xiii. 32,
Lord's intellectual development would not necessarily be in
consistent with the simultaneous perfection of His knowledge.
As Man, He might have received an infused knowledge of all
truth, and yet have taken possession through experience and in
detail of that which was latent in His mind, in order to corre
spond with the intellectual conditions of ordinary human life. But,
let us suppose that this explanation be rejected s, that St. John's
statement be left out of sight, and that St. Luke's words be
understood to imply simply that our Lord's Human Soul ac
quired knowledge which It did not in any sense possess before.
Does even any such ' increase in wisdom ' as this during Christ's
early years, warrant our saying that, in the days of His min
istry, our Lord was still ignorant of the real claims and worth
of the Jewish Scriptures 1 Does it enable us to go further, and
to maintain that, when He made definite statements on the
subject, He was both the victim and the propagator of serious
error ? Surely such inferences are not less unwarranted by the
statements of Scripture than they are destructive of Christ's
character and authority as a teacher of truth !
2. But it may be pleaded that our Lord, in declaring His
ignorance of the day of the last judgment, does positively assign
a specified limit to the knowledge actually possessed by His
Human Soul during His ministry. ' Of that day,' He says, ' and
that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in
heaven, neither the Son, but the Father V ' If these words/ you
dom,' when this element is, so to speak, taken possession of a second time
by means of personal inquiry and reflection. This is, of course, a very
remote analogy to the Sacred Subject discussed in the text, but it may
serve to suggest how the facts of an infused knowledge and a real irpo&Kvirre
aotplq in our Lord's Human Soul may have been compatible.
■ The following remarks of Dr. Klee will be read with interest. Dogmatik,
p. 511: 'Der Menschheit Christi kann keine absolute Vollendung und
Imperfectibilitat der Erkenntniss von Anfang an zugelegt werden, weil dann
Christus im Eingange in seine Glorie in Bezug auf sie unverherrlicht geblie-
ben ware, was nicht wohl angenommen werden kann ; weil ferner dann in
Christo eine wahrhafte Allwissenheit angenommen werden miisste, was mit
der menschlichen Natur und dem menschlichen Willen nicht wohl zu verein-
baren ist ; und wenn Einige sich damit helfen zu konnen glaubten, dass
diese Allwissenheit immer nur eine aus Gnade mitgetheilte ware, so ist
dagegen zu bemerken, dass die Menschheit dann aus Gnade auch die andern
gottlichen Attribute, z. B. Allmacht haben konnte, und wenn man dieses mit
der Entgegnung aus dem Felde zu schlagen glaubt, dass die Allmacht die
Gottheit selbst, mithin absolut incommunicabel ist, so muss erwidert werden,
dass die Allwissenheit ebenso Gottes Wesen selbst, somit unmittheilbar ist.'
t St. Mark xiii. 32 : irepl 6e rrjs ripipas eKefv^y Kal Tijs upas, ovSels oibey,
ov$i oi SyyeAot oi h ovpwf, oiSe 6 Tibs, el fi); d Vlariip.
[ LECT.
how understood by great Western Fathers. 459
urge, ' do not refer to His ignorance as God, they must refer to
His ignorance in the only other possible sense, that is to say, to
His ignorance as Man.'
Of what nature then is the ' ignorance' to which our Lord
alludes in this much-controverted text ? Is it a real matter-of-
fact ignorance, or is it an ignorance which is only ideal and
hypothetical 1 Is it an ignorance to which man, as man, is na
turally subject, but to which the Soul of Christ, the Perfect Man,
was not subject, since His human intelligence was always illu
minated by an infused omniscience u 1 or is it an economical as
distinct from a real ignorance? Is it the ignorance of the
Teacher, who withholds from His disciples a knowledge which
He actually possesses, but which it is not for their advantage
to acquire x? or is it the ignorance which is compatible with
implicit knowledge 1 Does Christ implicitly know the date of
the day of judgment, yet, that He may rebuke the forwardness
of His disciples, does He refrain from contemplating that which
is potentially within the range of His mental vision 1 Is He
deliberately turning away His gaze from the secrets which are
open to it, and which a coarse, earthly curiosity would have
greedily and quickly investigated y 1
With our eye upon the literal meaning of our Lord's words,
must we not hesitate to accept any of these explanations 1 It is
indeed true that to many very thoughtful and saintly minds,
the words, ' neither the Son,' have not appeared to imply any
'ignorance' in the Son, even as Man. But antiquity does not
furnish any decisive consent in favour of this belief; and it
might seem, however involuntarily, to put a certain force upon
the direct sense of the passage. There is no sufficient ground
for questioning the correctness of the text2; and here, as always,
' if a literal explanation will stand, the furthest from the letter
is commonly the worst.' If elsewhere, in the course of these
lectures, we have appealed to the literal force of the great texts in
a St. Greg.Magn. Epist. lib. x. 39. ad Kulog.: 'In natur& quidem humanitatis
novit diem et horam judicii, sed tamen hunc non ex natura humanitatis novit.'
* St. Aug. de Trin. i. 1 1 : ' Hoc enim neseit, quod nescientes facit, id est,
quod non ita sciebat ut tunc discipulis indicaret.' St. Ambros. de Fide, v. §
222: ' Nostrum assumpsit affectum, ut nostra ignoratione nescire se diceret,
non quia aliquid ipse nesciret.' St. HU. de Trin. ix. 62. See the passages
accumulated by Dr. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, p. 464, note
/, Lib. Fath.
a So Lange, Leben Jesu, ii. 3, p. 1280.
■ St. Ambr.de Fid. v. § 193 : ' Primum veteres non habent codices Grseci,
quia nec Filius scit.'
VIII ]
460 Our Lord's statement in St. Mark xiii. 32,
St. John and St. Paul, as yielding a witness to the Catholic doc
trine, can we substitute for the literal sense of the passage before
us, a sense which, to say the least, is not that suggested by the
letter? If then we should understand that our Lord in His
Human Soul was, at the time of His speaking, actually ignorant
of the day of the last judgment, we shall find ourselves sheltered
by Fathers of unquestioned orthodoxy a. St. Irenaeus discovers
in our Lord's Human ignorance a moral argument against the
intellectual self-assertion of his own Gnostic contemporaries b ;
while . he attributes Omniscience to the Divine Nature of Christ
in the clearest terms. St. Athanasius insists that the explanation
which he gives, restricting our Lord's ignorance to His Human
Soul, is a matter in which the faithful are well instructed0.
He is careful to assert again and again our Lord's omniscience
as God the Word; he attributes Christ's 'ignorance' as Man
to the condescending love by which He willed to be like unto
us in all things d, and compares it, accordingly, to His hunger
* Klee says : ' It was impossible, in virtue of the Hypostatic Union, to as
cribe to the Human Soul of Christ an absolute science and a perfect know
ledge. On this subject, however, there is a very marked difference between
the Fathers.' Dogmengeschichte, ii. 4. 7. Of the Fathers cited by Klee the
majority assert a limitation of knowledge in our Lord's Human Soul.
b St. Iren. adv. Hser. ii. 28, 6 : ' Irrationabiliter autem inflati, audaciter
inenarrabilia Dei mysteria scire vos dicitis ; quandoquidem et Dominus, ipse
Filius Dei, ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem, mani
festo dicens, " De die autem illS et hor& nemo scit, neque Filius, sed Pater
solus." (Marc. xiii. 32.) Si igitur scientiam diei illius Filius non erubuit
referre ad Patrem, sed dixit quod verum est ; neque nos erubescamus, quae
sunt in quaestionibus majora secundum nos, reservare Deo. Nemo enim super
Magistrum est.' That St. Irenseus is here referring to our Lord's humanity
is clear from the appeal to His example. Of His Divinity he says (ii. 28, 7) 5
' Spiritus Salvatoris, qui in eo est, scrutatur omnia, et altitudines Dei.* Cf.
Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 5, 8.
c St. Athan. contr. Arian. Orat. iii. c. 45 : ot St <piX6xpurroi Kal xpurro-
<t>6poi yivd>(TKa>{Xiv, ws ovk ayvouv 6 ASyos fi A6yos iarlv eKtyev, 1 ovk olSa,'
olSe yap, &A\a rb avBp&mvov fciKvbs, Sri rwv avdpcairwv Wlidv iffrt rb ayvotiv,
Kal tin ffdpita ayvoovaav tvtb'vo'aro, 4y 77 wv ffapKiKWs eAcyev. Dr. Mill resents
the suggestion 'that when even an Athanasius could speak (with the Scrip
tures) of the limitation of human knowledge in the Incarnate Son, the im
proved theology of later times is entitled to censure the sentiment, as though
impeaching His Divine Personality.' On the Nature of Christianity, p. 18.
d Ibid. c. 43 : d/xeAfi \4ya>v iv rtp evayyeKltp Trtpl rov Kara rb avdptinrtvov
avrov' Tl&Ttp, 4\i]\vd€v tj Sipa' $6£a(r6v aov rbv Tlov Sij\6s tortv Srt Kal t^jv
irepl rod ir6.vrwv r4\ovs wpav ws fiiv A6yos yivtbtrKet, ws 5c &v0pwiros ayvoei'
avdpumov yap tb*tov rb ayvociv, Kal pAXivra ravra. aWa Kal rovro rris <pt\av-
Opw-nias X&iov rov Swr^pos. iireilfy yhp ytyovtv &v6pwiros, ovk 4nato-xvv*Tai 5ia
rijif trdpKa. rfy ayvoovaav enmi/, ovk oI5a, Xua Sffjp Sti tlSws ws ®tbs ayvot?
aapKMUs, ovk ttpiiKe yovv, ovSe i Tibs rov 0eoC offier, ha ^ y OeSrr/s ayvo
[ LECT.
explained by SS. Athanasius and Cyril Alex. 461
and thirst e. ' To whom,' exclaims St. Gregory Nazianzen, ' can
it be a matter of doubt that Christ has a knowledge of that hour
as God, but says that He ia ignorant of it as Manf ?' St. Cyril
of Alexandria argues that our Lord's ' ignorance' as Man is in
keeping with the whole economy of the Incarnation. As God,
Christ did know the day of judgment; but it was consistent
with the law of self-humiliation prescribed by His infinite love
that He should assume all the conditions of real humanity, and
therefore, with the rest, a limitation of knowledge. There would
be no reasonable ground for offence at that which was only a
consequence of the Divine Incarnation s. You will remark, my
brethren, the significance of such a judgment when advanced by
this great father, the uncompromising opponent of Nestorian
error, the strenuous assertor of the Hypostatic Union, the chief
inheritor of all that is most characteristic in the theological
ovtra tyaivrirai" a\?C ojtXus, ' ouSe d Tibs,' %va tov avdpAirav yevopUvov Tlov
7j &yvoia
c St. Athan. contr. Arian. Orat. iii. c. 46 : tiianep yap &v6panros yevSfievos
fiera avQptantav iretvif Kal 5t$q Kal n&ax*1! oilrus ueTa pev twv hvQpdynutv us
&v8pwiros ovk o?5e, fctKus 5e iv Ttp Uarpl tiv A6yos Kal Xoipia o?8e, Kai ovSev
(ariv o ir/voei. Cf. ad Serap. ii. 9.
f St. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxx. 15 : KaWoi irus ayvoei ti tuv 6vtuv 7] 2o<£i'ce o
7to(tjt^s tuv aluvuvt d (TvvT€\€tTT^s Kal jucTciirofTjT^F, rb irepas tuv yevopevuv ;
. . . . % •naffiv etihrqKov, ftri yiv&GKU pev, us ®ebs, ayvoeiv Se'^ffiy, us &p6ponros,
&v tis rb <paiv6pevov x^pftn? tov voovpivov ; fiaTe tV dyvoiav \mohap.-
fidveiv €7rl to" cvo"€&e<rTepov, Tip dvBpuitlvu, pL-lj Tip ©clip Tavrqv Koyifypevovs.
s St. Cyril. Alex. Thesaurus, Op. torn. v. p. 221: Ho-jrep oZv avyKtx^PVKtv
eavrbv us dvBpomov yev6pevov peTa avBptlmwv Kal ireivav Kal Sityrjv Kal ra aWa
ir&o"Xeiv aVep etpwrai irepl avTov, Tbv avrbv 5^ Tp&vov o.k6\ov9ov p.}} (TKavSaK'i^e-
trSai Kav us &v6pu7ros Ae'77? p.na avGpt&nuv ayvotlv, '6ri t^v avrr,v fjpiv 4<f>6peae
adpKa' oTSe pev yap us "S,o(pla Kal \6yos uv tv TlaTpi' p^ elSevat Se tf>7}fft St ypas
xal pel? fipuv us dyBpuiros. But see the whole discussion of the bearing of
St. Mark xiii. 32, upon the Homoousion (Thesaurus, pp. 217-224). Certainly
St. Cyril refers to the ohtovopla, and he speaks of Christ's ' saying that He
did not know, on our account,' and of His professing not to know ' humanly.'
But this language does not amount to saying that Christ really did know, as
Man, while for reasons of His Own, which were connected with His love and
<pi\av6puncia, He said He knew not. St. Cyril's mind appears to be, that our
Lord did know as God, but in His love He assumed all that belongs to real
manhood, and, therefore, actual limitation of knowledge. The word oUovopla
does not seem to mean here simply a gracious or wise arrangement, but the
Incarnation, considered as involving Christ's submission to human limitations.
The Latin translator renders it 'administration! sive Incarnationi.' St. Cyr.
Op. v. p. 218. St. Cyril does not say that Christ really did know as Man; he
must have said so, considering the bearing of his argument, had he believed
it. He thus states the principle which he kept in view : oSra yap eKoaTov
tuv Aeyoptvuv 4v Trj olxelq Ta^et Kelfftrai' otire tuv b'ffa vpenei yvpvtp Ttp
A.6yu KaTa<pepopevuv els Tb avdp(Zrmvovt oifre pfy tuv avdpaTrtvuv ava0atv6vrwv
els Tbv T7/s Qe6ri\Tos \6yov. Thes. p. 253.
VIII ]
ifii The heresy of the Agnoetcz.
mind of St. Athanasius. It is of course true that a different belief
was already widely received within the Church : it is enough to
point to the 'retractation' of Leporius, to which St. Augustine
was one of the subscribing bishops h. But although a contrary
judgment subsequently predominated in the West, it is certain
that the leading opponents of Arianism did not shrink from re
cognising a limitation of knowledge in Christ's Human Soul, and
that they appealed to His own words as a warrant for doing so*.
' But have we not here,' you ask, ' albeit disguised under and
recommended by the sanction of great names, the old heresy of
the Agnoetse?' No. The Agnoetse attributed ignorance not
merely to our Lord's Human Soul, but to the Eternal Word.
They seem to have imagined a confusion of Natures in Christ,
after the Eutychian pattern, and then to have attributed igno
rance to that Divine Nature into which His Human Nature, as
they held, was absorbed K They were thus, on this point, in
agreement with the Arians : while Eulogius of Alexandria, who
wrote against them, admitted that Catholic fathers before him
had taught that, as Man, Christ had been subject to a certain
limitation of knowledge 1.
h Quoted by Petavius, De Incarn. xi. ; c. I, § 14. Leporius appears to
have answered the Arian objections by restricting the ignorance to our Lord's
Human Soul, after the manner of St. Athanasius. He retracts as follows :
' Ut autem et hinc nihil cuiquam in suspicione derelinquam, tunc dixi, immb
ad objecta respondi, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum secundum hominem
ignorare : sed nunc non solum dicere non praesumo, verum etiam priorem
anathematizo prolatam in h&c parte sententiam.' Leporius, however, seems
really to have anticipated Nestorius in teaching a complete separation of our
Lord's Two Natures. Klee, Dogmengesch. ii. 4. 4.
1 Compare Bishop Forbes on Nic. Creed, p. 146, 2nd ed. And see St.
Hil. in Matt. Comm. c. 26, n. 4 ; Theodoret in Ps. xv. § 7, quoted by Klee.
k See Suicer in voc. 'Ayvoirral, i. p. 65 : ' Hi docebant divinam Christi
naturam (hanc enim solam post Unionem agnoscebant, tanquam absorpta
esset plane humana), qusedam ignor&sse, ut horam extremi judicii.' Eulogius
of Alexandria, who wrote against them, denied any actual limitation of
knowledge in Christ's Manhood, but admitted that earlier Fathers had taught
this, irphs r})v twp 'Apetavwv /xaviav avTt<pcp6[i€voi ; but, as he thinks, because
otnovofj.iK(i>Tepov 45oKi/iaffav e?rl T77S hv9pwTt6n\Tos ravra tpepciv ^ irapax&pfiv
ttceivovs /xtQe\Keiv ravra Karh 1-7)5 &t&ri]Tos. Apud Photium, Cod. 230, ed.
Bekker. p. 284, 6, sub fin. Klee distinguishes between the teaching of those
Fathers who denied that the Human Soul of Christ possessed unlimited
knowledge, and that of the Agnoetse, who ' speaking of the Person of Christ
without any li mitations,' maintained that He did not know the day of judg
ment. Dogmengeschichte, ii. 4. § 7-
1 It is remarkable that ' die Ansicht dass Christi Menschheit gleich nach
der Vereinigung mit dem Logos Alles wusste, als Irrthum des Arnold von
Villanova 1 309 formlioh verurtheilt worden .' Klee, Dogmatik, p. 5 1 1 . Arnold
attempted to maintain that his opinion was a necessary consequence of the
[ LECT.
Omniscience and limited knowledge. 463
' At any rate,' you rejoin, ' if our Lord's words are to be taken
literally, if they are held to mean that the knowledge of His
Human Soul is in any degree limited, are we not in danger of
Nestorian error ? Does not this conjunction of " knowledge" and
" ignorance " in one Person, and with respect to a single subject,
dissolve the unity of the God-man m ? Is not this intellectual
dualism inconsistent with any conception we can form of a single
personality ? Cannot we understand the indisposition of later
theologians to accept the language of St. Athanasius and others
without an explanation, even although a sense which it does not
of itself suggest is thereby forced upon it?'
The question to be considered, my brethren, is whether such
an objection has not a wider scope than you intend. Is it not
equally valid against other and undisputed contrasts between
the Divine and Human Natures of the Incarnate Son? For
example, as God, Christ is omnipresent ; as Man, He is present
at a particular point in space n. Do you say that this, however
mysterious, is more conceivable than the co-existence of igno
rance and knowledge, with respect to a single subject in a single
personality ? Let me then ask whether this co-existence of igno
rance and knowledge is more mysterious than a co-existence of
absolute blessedness and intense suffering ? If the Scriptural
words which describe the sufferings of Jesus are understood
literally, without establishing Nestorianism ; why are we in
danger of Nestorianism if we understand Him to be speaking of
His Manhood, when He asserts that the Son is ignorant of the
day of judgment? If Jesus, as Man, did not enjoy the Divine
attribute of perfect blessedness, yet without prejudice to His
full possession of it, as God ; why could He not, in like manner,
as Man, be without the Divine attribute of perfect knowledge ?
If as He knelt in Gethsemane, He was in one sphere of existence
All-blessed, and in another ' sore amazed, very heavy, sorrowful
even unto death might He not with equal truth be in the
one Omniscient, and in the other subject to limitations of know-
0 Bishop Ellicott, in Aids to Faith, p. 445 : ' Is there really any greater
difficulty in such a passage [as St. Mark xiii. 32] than in John xi. 33, 35,
where we are told that those holy cheeks were still wet with human tears,
while the loud Voice was crying, " Lazarus, come forth ! " '
p See Leibnitz's reply to Wissowatius, quoted by Lessing, Sammtl. Schrift.
ix. 277: 'Potest quis ex nostra hypothesi simul esse ille qui nescit diem
judicii, nempe homo, et ille qui est Deus Altissimus. Qua? hypothesis nostra,
quod idem simul possit esse Deus et homo, quamdiu non erertitur, tamdiu
contrarium argumentum petit principium.'
1 See Klee, Dogmatik, p. 511 : ' Auch das kann nicht gesagt werden, dass
die menschliche Natur, wenn sie nicht absolut vollkommen und imperfectibel
ist, dann mit Unwissenheit behaftet ist ; denn nicht-allwissend ist nicht un-
wissend, sonst war Adam vor seinem Falle schon, und sind die Engel und
Heiligen in ihrer Glorie immerfort in der Unwissenheit. Unwissenheit ist
Negation des nothwendigen und ziemenden Wissens, und solche ist in der
Menschheit Christi nicht, in welche die ihr verbundene Gottheit alles zu
ihrem Berufe gehorige und durch sie alles zum Heile der Menschheit ge-
horige iiberstromte. Darum war auch die Steigerung der Wissenschaft der
Menschheit keine Erlosung derselben, und fallt der Einwand, dass, wenn die
Menschheit etwas nicht gewusst hiitte, sie eine erlosungsbedttrftige gewesen
ware, was doch nicht angenommen werden konne, weg.'
[ LECT.
Superhuman range oj"Christ's knowledge asMan. 465
revealed to Him by the senses, and beyond the reach of sense.
Thus He knows the exact coin which will be found in the mouth
of the first fish which His apostle will presently take1. He
bases His discourse on the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, on
an accurate knowledge of the secret communings in which His
conscience-stricken disciples had indulged on the road to Caper
naum8. He gives particular instructions to the two disciples
as to the finding of the ass on which He will make His entry
into Jerusalem*. He is perfectly cognizant of the secret plot-
tings of the traitor, although no human informant had disclosed
themu. Nor is this knowledge supernaturally communicated at
the moment ; it is the result of an actual supra-sensuous sight
of that which He describes. 'Before that Philip called thee,'
He says to Nathanael, ' when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw
theex.' Do you compare this to the knowledge of secrets
ascribed to Elishay, to Danielz, to St. Petera? In these in
stances, as eminently in that of Daniel, the secret was revealed
to the soul of the prophet or apostle. In the case of Christ we
hear of no such revelation ; He speaks of the things of heaven
with a calm familiarity, which is natural to One Who knows
them as beholding them 'in Himself V
Indeed, our Lord's knowledge embraced two districts, each
of which really lies open only to the Eye of the Most High.
We will not dwell on His knowledge of the unsuspected future,
a knowledge inherent in Him, as it was imparted to those
prophets in whom His Spirit had dwelt. We will not insist on
His knowledge of a strictly contingent futurity, such as is
involved in His positive assertion that Tyre and Sidon would
have repented of their sins, if they had enjoyed the opportunities
of Chorazin and Bethsaida c ; although such knowledge as this,
considering the vast survey of motives and circumstances which
it implies, must be strictly proper to God alone. But He knew
the secret heart of man, and He knew the hidden thought and
purpose of the Most High God. Such a 'discerner' was He
' of the thoughts and intents' of human hearts d, so truly did His
Apocalyptic title, the 'Searcher of the reins and hearts e,' belong
» St. Matt. xvii. 27.
■ St. Luke ix. 47 : iSi>v tAd SiaXoyiaiibv rijs KapSlas avrwv.
' St. Matt. xxi. 2 ; St. Mark xi. 2 ; St. Luke xix. 30.
■ St. John xiii. II. 1 Ibid. i. 49. J 2 Kings vi. 9, 32.
1 Dan. ii. 19. " Acts v. 3. * St. John vi. 61 : iv eoi/rf.
c St. Matt. xi. 21.
A Heb. iv. 12: KpniKbs ivOvfi-titreuv Ktu ivvot&v KapMas.
° Rev. ii. 23. The message from Jesus to each of the angels of the seven
VIII ] Hh
466 Superhuman range of Christ"s knowledge.
to Him in the days of His historical manifestation, that ' He
needed not that any should testify to Him of men, for He knew
what was in manf.' This was not a result of His taking careful
note of peculiarities of action and character manifested to the
eye by those around Him, but of His ' perceiving in His Spirit'
and 'knowing in Himself 8' the unuttered reasonings and voli
tions which were taking shape, moment by moment, within the
secret souls of men, just as clearly as He saw physical facts not
ordinarily appreciated except by sensuous perception. This was
the conviction of His apostles. ' We are sure,' they said, ' that
Thou knowest all things'1.' 'Lord, Thou knowest all things,'
cries St. Peter, ' Thou knowest that I love Thee1.' Yet more,
in the Eternal Father Jesus encounters no impenetrable mys
teries ; for Jesus no clouds and darkness are round about Him,
nor is His way in the sea, nor His path in the deep waters, nor
His footsteps unknown. On the contrary, our Lord reciprocates
the Father's knowledge of Himself by an equivalent knowledge
of the Father. ' As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I
the Father K' 'No man knoweth Who the Son is, but the
Father ; and Who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom
the Son will reveal Him V Even if our Lord should be speak
ing, in this passage, primarily at least, of His Divine omniscience,
He is also plainly speaking of a knowledge infused into and
possessed by His Human Soul, and thus His words supply the
true foil to His statement respecting the day of judgment. If
that statement be construed literally, it manifestly describes, not
the normal condition of His Human Intelligence, but an excep
tional restriction. For the Gospel history implies that the
knowledge infused into the Human Soul of Jesus was ordinarily
and practically equivalent to omniscience. ' We may conjecture,'
says Hooker, 'how the powers of that Soul are illuminated,
Which, being so inward unto God, cannot choose but be privy
unto all things which God worketh, and must therefore of
necessity be endued with knowledge so far forth universal,
though not with infinite knowledge peculiar to Deity Itself m.'
St. Paul's assertion that ' in Christ are hidden all the treasures
Churches begins with the word olSa, as if in order to remind these bishops
of His soul-penetrating omniscience.
f St. John ii. 25 : oi/ xpf'lav ^Xev tvarls /xaprvfj^crri irtpl rov avBpdnrov'
avrl>s yctp syivwuK* ti jjy 4v rip ai/Opuntp. s St. Mark ii. 8 ; v. 30.
h St. John xvi. 30 : vvv oXbapev 8ti oiSas irdvra.
1 Ibid. xxi. 1 7 : Ktfpie, eri» -ndvra olSas' trii yiviaatctis Sti <piAw <re.
* Ibid. 1. 15. 1 St. Luke x. 22. m Eccl. Pol. v. £4- 7.
[ LECT.
Limitation of knowledge is not fallibility. 467
of wisdom and knowledge n,' may practically be understood of
Christ's earthly life, no less than of His life of glory. If then His
Human Intellect, flooded as it was by the infusion of boundless
light streaming from His Deity, was denied, at a particular
time, knowledge of the date of a particular future event, this
may well be compared with that deprivation of the consolations
of Deity, to which His Human Affections and Will were
exposed when He hung dying on the Cross. If ' the Divine
Wisdom,' as Bishop Bull has said, ' impressed its effects upon
the Human Soul of Christ pro temporum ratione, in the degree
required by particular occasions or emergencies0,' this would be
only one application of the principle recognised by St Irenseus
and Theodoret, and rendered familiar to many of us in the
language of Hooker. ' As the parts, degrees, and offices of that
mystical administration did require, which He voluntarily
undertook, the beams of Deity did in operation always accord
ingly restrain or enlarge themselves p.' We may not attempt
rashly to specify the exact motive which may have determined
our Lord to deny to His Human Soul at one particular date
the point of knowledge here in question ; although we may
presume generally that it was a part of that condescending love
which led Him to become ' in all things like unto His brethren.'
That He was ever completely ignorant of aught else, or that He
was ignorant on this point at any other time, are inferences for
which we have no warrant, and which we make at our peril.
But it is not on this account alone that our Lord's Human
ignorance of the day of judgment, if admitted, cannot be made
the premiss of an argument intended to destroy His authority,
when He sanctions the Mosaic authorship and historical trust
worthiness of the Pentateuch. That argument involves a con
fusion between limitation of knowledge and liability to error ;
whereas, plainly enough, a limitation of knowledge is one thing,
and fallibility is another. St. Paul says that ' we know in
n Col. ii. 3 : iv $ flat times of Briaavpol Trjs <ro<ptas Ktd rrjs yviicrtan
° Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. ii. J, 8 : ' Quippe divinam Sapientiam menti humanse
Christi effectus suos impressisse pro temporum ratione, Christumque, qu4
Homo fuit, npoK&tyai <ro<pta, profecisse sapienti.1 (Luc. ii. 52) adeoque pro
tempore suee airofrroASs, quo ist& scientiS opus non habebat (this seems to
hint at more than anything which the text of the New Testament warrants)
diem judicii universalis ignorare potuisse, nemini sano absurdum videbitur.'
P Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 54. 6. See Mr. Keble's references from Theodoret
(Dial. iii. t. 4, pars. i. 232) and St. Iren. Hrer. iii. c. 19. 3.
VIII ] Hh 2
•*
468 Recent assailants of the Pentateuch make Our
parti,' and that 4 we see through a glass darkly1".' Yet St. Paul
is so certain of the truth of that which he teaches, as to exclaim,
* If we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel to you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed8.' St. Paul clearly believed in his own infallibility as
a teacher of religious truth ; and the Church of Christ has ever
since regarded his Epistles as part of an infallible literature.
But it is equally clear that St. Paul believed his knowledge of
religious truth to be limited. Infallibility does not imply omni
science, any more than limited knowledge implies error. Infal
libility may be conferred on a human teacher with very limited
knowledge, by a special endowment preserving him from error.
When we say that a teacher is infallible, we do not mean that his,
knowledge is encyclopsedaic, but merely that, when he does
teach, he is incapable of propounding as truth that which, in
point of fact, is not true4.
Now the argument in question assumes that Christ our Lord,
when teaching religious truth, was not merely fallible, but
actually in serious error. If indeed our Lord had believed
Himself to be ignorant of the authorship or true character of
the Book of Deuteronomy, we may presume that He would not
have fallen below the natural level of ordinary heathen honesty,
by speaking with authority upon a subject with which He was
consciously unacquainted. It is admitted that He spoke as
believing Himself to be teaching truth. But was He, in point
of fact, not teaching truth ? Was that which He believed to be
knowledge nothing better than a servile echo of contemporary
ignorance? Was His knowledge really limited on a subject-
matter, where He was Himself unsuspicious of the existence of
a limitation % Was He then not merely deficient in information,
'lrjaovs Xpi(rT&s i2wT^jp rjfiwv Kal Capua Kal afjua inrep ffomjplas rjp.oov iaxev> °^T«*
Kal tV Si' titxys \6yov tov Trap' avrov tvxapiffrri&eiffav rpoip^v, l{ ?is al/xa Kal
trdpKes koto fisTa&oXyv rpetpomat 7]u,uv, inelvov tov aapKoiroiy)B(vros 'lijffov Kal
adpxa Kal af/ia 45iSdx6riu.fv cTvai. Cf. Dorner, Person Christi, Erster Theil,
p. 435, note 47 : ' Justin denkt sich den ganzen Christus in Verbindung mit
dem Abendmahl. Auch so kann er sich diese unter dem Bilde der Incar
nation denken, indem Christus die Elemente zum sichbaren Organ seiner
Wirksamkeit und Selbstmittheilung macht, und das durch seine Erhohung
verlorne Moment der Sichtbarkeit seiner objectiven Erscheinung sich in
jedem Abendmahl durch Assumtion der sichtbaren Elemente wieder her-
stellt' For the connection between the Holy Eucharist and our Lord's
Divinity, see St. Cyril Alex. Epist. Synod, ad Nestorium, c. 7 : T))k avainoK-
tov iv Tats iKK\tj(riais Te\ovfiw Bvfftav, irp6ffip.4v re ovtw TaTs u.vo-tiko?s eii\o-
ylais Kal ayia£6fj.e6a, /xtroxoi yev6u*voi rrjs re ayias aapKbs, Kal tov Ttfilov
alfmTos tov wdvruv rjpMv ^uttjoos XpitTTou* Kal ovx ws o~dpKa Koivyv Sex^/JLeyoi
(uif yivono) oiJre fri]V ws avbpbs Tiytacrfievov Kal avvaipdivTOs t<£ \6ytp Kara
t}jv IvoTyyra t$}j h\iast ffyovv us Qtlav ho'iK-yatv 4o~xvk6tos, a\A' a>s faoroibv
a\7}9us Kal IStav ai/Tov tov A6yov. Zwq yap ay Kara tpvfftv us ©cis, iireilfy
ytyovtv %v irpbs tV kavTov o~dpKa, faoiroibv diretpTjvei/ avrl}v. This epistle,
given in Routh, Scr. Opusc. ii. 17, ed. 3, was written Nov. 430, and read
with tacit approval, as it seems, at the General Council of Ephesus in 431.
(See Bright's Hist. Ch. pp. 326, 333.) A similar passage is in St. Cyril's
Explanatio xii. Capitum, (torn. vi. p. 156,) to the effect that the Body and
Blood in the Holy Eucharist are ovx (fos twv xaff tyuar Kal avBpuirov koivov,
but 15iov cwjua Kal aijua tov to vdvTa faoyovovmos h6yov Koivy yap (rapt-
faoirotttv oil Zvvarai, Kal tovtov uAotvs avros 6 Swr^p, \4yuv, 1 'H erap£ oitK
axpcAti ouSlv, to wvevnd 4sti Tb fwoiroioSi'.' So in his Comm. in Joan. lib. iv.
(torn. iv. p. 361) he says that as Christ's Flesh, by union with the Word,
Who is essentially Life, faoirotbs yeyove, therefore brav avrrts dwoyevo-6fie6a,
Tore Tyv (5»V ix°PLfV tavTois. A St. Matt, xxviii. 19 ; xxvi. 26.
• St. John iii. 5 ; vi. 53 sqq. ' 1 St. John xv. I sqq. * Eph. v. 30.
" Gal. iii. 27. ' Communion Service.
[LECT.
depreciation of the Christian Sacraments. 483
Apostles have traced around the Font and the Altar, any more
than we can deal thus lightly with the precious hopes and
promises that are graven by the Divine Spirit upon the Cross.
The Divinity of Christ warrants the realities of sacramental
grace as truly as it warrants the cleansing virtue of the Atoning
Blood. If it forbids our seeing in the Great Sacrifice for sin,
nothing higher than a moral exemplar ; it also forbids our
degrading the august institutions of the Divine Redeemer to the
level of the dead ceremonies of the ancient law. And con
versely, belief in the reality of sacramental grace protects belief
in a Christ Who is really Divine. Sacraments, if fully believed
in, furnish outworks in the religious thought and in the daily
habits of the Christian, which necessarily and jealously guard
the prerogatives and honour of his adorable Lord.
That depreciation of the Sacraments has often been followed
by depreciation of our Lord's Eternal Person is a simple matter
of historyi. True, there have been and are earnest believers in
our Lord's Divinity who deny the realities of sacramental grace.
But experience appears to shew that their position may be only
a transitional one. History illustrates the tendency to Huma
nitarian declension even in cases where sacramental belief, al
though imperfect, has been far nearer to the truth than is the
bare naturalism of Zwinglik. Many English Presbyterian congre-
I Mill, University Sermons, p. 190 ; Gladstone on Church Principles, p. 185.
k Zwingli de Verft et Fals& Relig. Op. iii. p. 263. n. A: 'Est ergo sive
eucharistia sive synaxis, sive ccena dominica nihil aliud quam commemoratio,
qua ii, qui se Christi morte et sanguine firmiter credunt patri reconciliatos
esse, hanc vitalem mortem annunciant, hoc est laudant, gratulantur et
prsedicant. Jam ergo sequitur, quod qui ad hunc usum aut festivitatem
conveniunt mortem domini commemoraturi, hoc est annunciaturi, sese unius
corporis esse membra, sese unum panem esse ipso facto testentur
Qui ergo cum Christianis commeat, quum mortem domini annuntiant, qui
simul symbolicum panem aut carnem edit, is nimirum postea secundum
Christi prsescriptum vivere debet, nam experimentum dedit aliis, quod
Christo fidat.' Here God does and gives nothing ; the ceremony described
is not a ' means of grace' but only and simply an act of man, a human
ceremonial action, expressive of certain ideas and convictions, shared by
those who take part in it. It is substantially the same account as that
which is given in the formal documents of early Socinianism. (Cat. Rac.
qu. 334, 335, 337.) It would be an extreme injustice to Calvin to identify
his belief on the subject with these unspiritual errors. Calvin even says :
' Quicquid ad exprimendam veram suhstantialemque corporis ac sanguinis
Domini communicationem, qua? sub sacris ccense symbolis fidelibus exhi-
betur, libenter recipio ; atque ita ut mom imaginatione dimtaxat aut mentis
intelligentia percipere, sed ut re ipsa frui in alimentum vitce asternas intelli-
gantur.' Instit. iv. 17, 19. The force of this language was, however, prac
tically destroyed by Calvin's doctrine of Divine decrees, which made
VIII ] Ii2
484 Sacraments preserve faith in Christ's Divinity.
gations, founded by men who fell away from the Church in the
seventeenth century, were, during the eighteenth, absorbed into
Arianism or Socinianism1. The pulpit and the chair of Calvin
are filled by teachers who have, alas ! much more in common
with the Eacovian Catechism than with the positive elements of
the theology of the Institutes"1. The restless mind of man cannot
but at last press a principle to the real limit of its application,
even although centuries should intervene between the premiss
and the conclusion. If we imagine that the Sacraments are only
picturesque memorials of an absent Christ, we are already in
a fair way to believe that the Christ Who is thus commemorated
as absent by a barren ceremony is Himself only and purely
human. Certainly if Christ were not Divine, the efficacy of
Sacraments as channels of graces that flow from His Manhood
would be the wildest of fancies. Certainly if Sacraments are
not thus channels of His grace, it is difficult to shew that they
have any rightful place in a dispensation, from which the dead
forms and profitless shadows of the synagogue have been
banished, and where all that is authorized is instinct with the
power of a heavenly life. The fact that such institutions as the
Sacraments are lawful in such a religion as the Gospel, of itself
implies their real efficacy : their efficacy points to the Godhead
of their Founder. Instead of only reviving the thought of a
distant past, they quicken all the powers of the Christian by
sacramental grace wholly dependent upon the sense of election, that is to
say, upon the subjective state, upon the feelings, ofthe believer, instead of upon
the promise and word of Christ. Thus it happened that humble minds among
Calvinists would naturally, in virtue of their very self-distrust, tend to adopt
a Zwinglian estimate of the Eucharist : and, historically speaking, Calvinism
has in this matter shewn a consistent disposition to degenerate in a
Zwinglian direction. Belief in the reality of Sacramental grace is only
secured, when men believe that such grace depends not on themselves but on
the promise and words of their Saviour, in other words, that it is objective.
And the objectivity of Sacramental grace implies of necessity an Omnipotent
Saviour, Whose grace it is. St. Augustine's famous saying, ' Accedit verbum
ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum,' is hopelessly unintelligible, unless He who
institutes the Sacrament and warrants its abiding efficacy be indeed Divine.
1 See Bogue and Bennett's History of Dissenters, iii. 240, 319 ; iv. 319,
383 ; and the Law Magazine, vol. xv. (May, 1836,) p. 348. In our own
country, other Calvinistic communions have in general been happily preserved
from such a fall. But the case of English Presbyterianism finds parallels in
Geneva, in Holland, in France, and in America. Such loss of truth by others
can never give Churchmen any ' controversial ' satisfaction ; the more truth
is held by Dissenters, the better both for them, and for the honour of Christ.
But the subject may suggest warnings to ourselves.
m Laing's Notes of a Traveller, pp. 324-5, quoted in Chr. Rem. July, 1863,
p. 247.
[LECT.
Priesthood and Royalty of the Divine Christ. 485
union with a present and living Saviour ; they assure us that
Jesus of Nazareth is to us at this moment what He was to
His first disciples eighteen centuries ago ; they make us know
and feel that He is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,
unchanging in His human tenderness, because Himself the
unchanging God. It is the doctrine of Christ's Divinity to
which they point, and which in turn irradiates the perpetuity
and the reality of their power.
(8) It is unnecessary for us to dwell more at length upon the
light which our Lord's Divinity sheds upon His Priestly office.
We know that as His promise and presence make poor human
words and simple elements the channels of His mercy, by taking
them up into His kingdom and giving them a power which of
themselves they have not, so it is His Divinity which makes
His Intercession in Heaven so omnipotent a force. He inter
cedes above, by His very presence ; He does not bend as a
suppliant before the Sanctity of God ; He is a Priest upon His
Throne D. Nor may we linger over the, bearings of His Divinity
upon His Kingly office. The fact that He rules with a bound
less power, may assure us that, whether willingly or by con
straint, yet assuredly in the end, all moral beings shall be put
under Him °. But you do not question the legitimacy of this
obvious inference. And time forbids us to linger upon the
topic, suggestive and interesting as it is. We pass then to
consider an objection which will have been taking shape in
many minds during the course of the preceding discussion.
III. You admit that the doctrine of Christ's Godhead illumi
nates the force of other doctrines in the Christian creed, and
that it explains the importance attributed to her sacramental
ordinances by the Christian Church. But you have the interests
of morality at heart ; and you are concerned lest this doctrine
should not merely fail to stimulate the moral life of men, but
should even deprive mankind of a powerful incentive to moral
energy. The Humanitarian Christ is, you contend, the most
precious treasure in the moral capital of the world. He is the
Perfect Man ; and men can really copy a life which a brother
man has lived. But if Christ's Godhead be insisted on, you
contend that His Human Life ceases to be of value as an
n Zech. vi. 13. Christ's perpetual presentation of Himself before the
Father is that which constitutes His Intercession. It lasts until the Judg
ment, as the enduring antitype to the High Prie3t's presentation of the
victim's blood in the Holy of Holies. Heb. viii. 3 ; ix. 24.
° I Cor. xv. 25; Heb. ii. 8.
VIII]
486 Objection to Christ's Divinity on moral grounds.
ethical model for humanity. An example must be in some
sense upon a level with those who essay to imitate it. A model
being, the conditions of whose existence are absolutely distinct
from the conditions which surround his imitators, will be
deemed to be beyond the reach of any serious imitation. If
then the dogma of Christ's Godhead does illuminate and sup
port other doctrines, this result is, in your judgment, purchased
at the cost of practical interests. A merely human saviour
would at least be imitable ; and he would thus better respond
to the immediate moral necessities of man. For man is, after
all, the child of common sense ; and before he embarks upon a
serious enterprise, he desires to be reasonably satisfied that he
is not aiming at the impracticable.
1. Now this objection is of an essentially h priori character.
It contends that, if Christ is God, His Manhood must be out of
the reach of human imitation. It does not deny the fact that
He has been most closely imitated by those who have believed
most entirely in His true Divinity. In fact it seems to leave
out of sight two very pertinent considerations.
(a) The objector appears to forget, on the one hand, that
according to the terms of the Catholic doctrine, our Lord is
truly and literally Man, and that it is His Human Nature which
is proposed to our imitation. His Divinity does not destroy
the reality of His Manhood, by overshadowing or absorbing it.
Certainly the Divine attributes of Jesus are beyond our imita
tion ; we can but adore a boundless Intelligence or a resistless
Will. But the province of the imitable in the Life of Jesus is
not indistinctly traced. As the Friend of publicans and sinners,
as the Consoler of those who suffer, and as the Helper of those
who want, Jesus Christ is at home among us. We can copy
Him, not merely in the outward activities of charity, but in its
inward temper ; we can copy the tenderness, the meekness, the
patience, the courage, which shine forth from His Perfect
Manhood. His Human Perfections constitute indeed a fault
less Ideal of Beauty, which, as moral artists, we are bound to
keep in view. What the true and highest model of a human
life is, has been decided for us Christians by the appearance of
Jesus Christ in the flesh. Others may endeavour to reopen
that question. For us it is settled, and settled irrevocably.
Nor are Christ's Human Perfections other than human ; they
are not, after the manner of Divine attributes, out of our reach ;
they are not designed only to remind us of what human nature
should, but cannot, be. We can approximate to them, even
[ LECT.
Christ'sManhoodimitable, butonly through Grace.q&'j
indefinitely. That in our present state of imperfection we
should reproduce them in their fulness is indeed impossible ;
but it is certain that a close imitation of Jesus of Nazareth is at
once our duty and our privilege. For God has 'predestinated
us to be conformed' by that which we do, not less than by that
which we endure, to the Human Image of His Blessed Son,
' that He might be the Firstborn among many brethrenP.'
(j3) Nor, on the other hand, may it be forgotten that if we can
thus copy our Lord, it is not in the strength of our fallen nature.
Vain indeed would be the effort, if in a spirit of Pelagian self-re
liance, we should endeavour to reproduce in our own lives the like
ness of Christ. Our nature left to itself, enfeebled and depraved,
cannot realize the ideal of which it is a wreck, until a higher
power has entered into it, and made it what of itself it cannot be.
Therefore the power of imitating Jesus comes from Jesus through
His Spirit, His Grace, His Presence. Now, as in St. Paul's day,
'Jesus Christ is in us' Christians, 'except we be reprobates').'
The ' power that worketh in us' is no mere memory of a distant
past. It is not natural force of feeling, nor the strength with
which self-discipline may brace the will. It is a living, ener
gizing, transforming influence, inseparable from the presence of a
' quickening Spirit r' such as is in very deed our glorified Lord.
If Christ bids us follow Him, it is because He Himself is the
enabling principle of our obedience. If He would have us be
like unto Himself, this is because He is willing by His indwelling
Presence to reproduce His likeness within us. If it is His Will
that we should grow up unto Him in all things Who is the Head,
even Christ 8 ; this is because His life-giving and life-sustaining
power is really distributed throughout the body of His members1.
Of ourselves we are 'miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked".'
But we take counsel of Him, and buy of ' His gold tried in the
fire ;' and forthwith we ' can do all things through Christ That
strengthened us V It is the Spiritual Presence of Christ in the
Church and in Christian souls which makes the systematic imi
tation of Christ something else than a waste of energy w. But if
the Christ Whom we imitate be truly human, the Christ Who
thus creates and fertilizes moral power within us must be Divine.
His Divinity does not disturb the outline of that model which
is supplied by His Manhood ; while it does furnish us with a
stock of inward force, in the absence of which an imitation of
the Perfect moral Being would be a fruitless enterprise.
p Rom. viii. 29. * 1 Cor. xiii. 5. r 1 Cor. xv. 45. 1 Eph. iv. 15.
1 Ibid. i. 33 ; iv. 16. 0 Rev. iii. 17. T Phil. iv. 13. w Eph. iv. 15-24.
Tin]
488 Moralfruitfulness offaith in Christ's Godhead.
2. Indeed, it is precisely this belief in the Divinity of our
Lord which has enriched human life with moral virtues such as
civilized paganism could scarcely have appreciated, and which it
certainly could not have created. The fruitfulness of this great
doctrine in the sphere of morals will be more immediately appa
rent, if we consider one or two samples of its productiveness.
(a) When Greek thought was keenest, and Greek art most
triumphantly creative, and Greek political life so organized as
to favour in a degree elsewhere unknown among meu the play
of man's highest natural energies, Greek society was penetrated
through and through by an invisible enemy, more fatal in its
ravages to thought, to art, to freedom, than the sword of any
Persian or Macedonian foex. And already in the age of the early
Caesars, Rome carried in her bosom the secret of her impending
decline and fall in the coming centuries. St. Paul detected and
exposed it in terms y which are not more explicit than those
employed by Tacitus and Juvenal. The life-blood of a race may be
drained away less nobly than on the battle-field. Every capacity
for high and generous exertion, or for the cheerful endurance of
suffering at the bidding of duty, all the stock of moral force on
which a country can rely in its hour of trial, may be sapped,
destroyed, annihilated by a domestic traitor. So it fared with
imperial Rome. The fate of the great empire was not really de
cided on the Rhine or on the Danube. Before the barbarians had
as yet begun to muster their savage hordes along the frontiers
of ancient civilization, their work had wellnigh been completed,
their victory had been won, in the cities, the palaces, nay, in the
very temples of the empire. And upon what resources could the
old Pagan Society fall back, in its alarm at, and struggle with
this formidable foe ? It could not depend upon the State. The
Emperor was the State by impersonation ; and not unfrequently
it happened that the Emperor was the public friend and patron
of the State's worst enemy. Nor could any reliance be placed
upon philosophy. Doubtless philosophy meant well in some of
its phases, in some of its representatives. But philosophy is
much too feeble a thing to enter the lists successfully with animal
passion; and, as a matter of fact, philosophy has more than once
been compelled or cajoled into placing her intellectual weapons
at the disposal of the sensualist. Nor did religion herself, in
her pagan guise, supply the needed element of resistance and
cure. Her mysteries were the sanction, her temples the scene,
1 DiSllhiger, Heidentlium und Judenthum, bk. 9. i. 2. p. 684, etc.
7 Rom. i. 24-32.
[lect.
Its relation to the grace of Purity. 489
her priests the ministers of the grossest debaucheries : and the
misery of a degraded society might have seemed to be complete,
when the institutions which were designed to shed some rays of
light and love from a higher sphere upon the woes and brutalities
of this lower world, did but consecrate and augment the thick
moral darkness which made of earth a very hell z.
Now, that Jesus Christ has breasted this evil, is a matter of
historical fact. His victory is chronicled, if not in the actual
practice, yet in the conventional standard of modern society.
Certainly the evil in question has not been fairly driven beyond
the frontiers of Christendom ; the tone of our social intercourse,
the sympathies of our literature, the proceedings of our law-courts,
would remind us from time to time 'that the Canaanite is yet
in the land.' But if he is not yet expelled from our borders, at
least he is forced to skulk away from the face of a society which
still names the Name of Jesus Christ. The most advanced
scepticism among us at the present day does not venture with
impunity to advocate habits which were treated as matters of
course by the friends of Plato : even the licence of our sensuous
poetry does not screen such advocacy from earnest and general
indignation. This is because, far beyond the circle of His true
worshippers, Jesus Christ has created in modern society a pub
lic opinion, sternly determined to discountenance and condemn
moral mischief, which yet it may be unable wholly to prevent.
This public opinion is sometimes tempted to disown its real
parentage and its undoubted obligations. Instead of rejoicing
to confess itself the pupil of Christ, it imagines schemes of
independent morality framed altogether by human thinkers,
which may relieve it of its sense of indebtedness to our Lord.
But as a matter of fact, all that is thus true and wholesome in the
national mind is an intellectual radiation from that actual mass
of living purity, wherewith the Healer of men has beautified the
lives of millions of Christians. And how has Jesus made men
pure? Did He insist upon prudential and hygienic considerations?
Did He prove that the laws of the physical world cannot be
strained or broken with physical impunity ? No. For, at least,
He knew human nature well; and experience does not justify the
anticipation that scientific demonstrations of the physical con
sequences of sensual indulgence will be equal to the task of check
ing the surging impetuosity of passion. Did Christ, then, call
men to purity only by the beauty of His Own example ? Did He
■ Dollinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, bk. 9. u. 4. p. JiS sqq.
VIII ]
49° Purity created by faith in a Divine Christ.
only confront them with a living ideal of purity, so bright and
beautiful as to shame them into hatred of animal degradation 1
Again I say, Jesus Christ knew human nature well. If He had
only offered an example of perfect purity, He would but have
repeated the work of the ancient Law ; He would have given us
an ideal, without the capacity of realizing it ; He would have at
best created a torturing sense of shortcoming and pollution,
stimulated by the vision of an unattainable standard of perfection.
Therefore He did not merely afford us in a Human form a fault
less example of chaste humanity. He did more. He did that
which He could only do as being in truth the Almighty God.
He made Himself one with our human nature, that He might
heal and bless it through its contact with His Divinity. He
folded it around His Eternal Person ; He made it His own ; He
made it a power which could quicken and restore us. And then,
by the gift of His Spirit, and by sacramental joints and bands,
He bound us to ita; He bound us through it to Himself; nay,
He robed us in it ; by it He entered into us, and made our
members His own. Henceforth, then, the tabernacle of God is
with men b ; and ' corpus regenerati fit caro Crucifixi.' Hence
forth Christian humanity is to be conscious of a Presence within
itc, before which the unclean spirit cannot choose but shrink
away discomfited and shamed d. The Apostle's argument to the
Corinthian Christians expresses the language of the Christian
conscience in presence of impure temptations, to the end of time.
'Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall
I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members
of an harlot 1 God forbid e.' From that day to this, the recoil
from an ingratitude which a Christian only can exhibit, the dread
of an act of sacrilege which a Christian only can commit, the
loving recognition of an inward Presence which a Christian only
can possess—these have been the controlling, sustaining, hallowing
motives which by God's grace have won the victory. But these
motives are rooted in a doctrine of Christ's sacramental union
with His people, which is the veriest fable unless the indwelling
Christ be truly God. The power of these motives to sustain us
in purity varies with our hold on the master-truth which they so
entirely presuppose. Such motives are strong and effective when
our faith in a Divine Christ is strong ; they are weak when our
faith in His Divinity is weak ; they vanish from our moral life,
J 2 Cor. viii. 9.
VIII ]
494 The grace of charity how far a product
the human heart, and to learn the bearing of a little child <1 —
that true note of predestined nobility — in the Kingdom of
Heaven.
(y) Let us take one more illustration of the moral fruitfulness
of a faith in the Divinity of our Saviour. There is a grace, to
which the world itself does homage, and which those who bend
neither heart nor knee before the world's Redeemer admit to be
the consequence of His appearance among men.
Heathenism, as being impure and proud, was consistently
unloving. For as the one vice eats out the delicacy and heart
of all true tenderness, so the other systematically enthrones
self upon the ruins of the unselfish affections. Despite the
Utopian sketches which have been drawn by the philosophers of
the last century, the sentiment of 'humanity' is too feeble a
thing to create in us a true love of man as man. Man does not,
in his natural state, love his brother man, except it be from
motives of interest or blood-relationship. Nay, man regards all
who are not thus related to him as forming the great company
of his natural rivals and enemies, from whom he has nothing to
expect save that which the might or the prudence of self-interest
may dictate.
to yap oUe'iov iriefei
iravQ* Spas' €v6iis 6* airfjfuav Kpabla
KaSos dp<p' aW6rpiovT.
Such is the voice of unchristianized nature : man's highest love
is the love of self, varied by those subordinate affections which
minister to self-love : and society is an agglomeration of self-
loving beings, whose ruling instincts are shaped by force or by
prudence into a political whole, but who are ever ready, as op
portunity may arise, to break forth into the excesses of an
unchecked barbarism. Contempt for and cruelty towards the
slave, hatred of the political or literary rival, suspicious aversion
for the foreigner, disbelief in the reality of human virtue and of
human disinterestedness, were recognised ingredients in the
temper of pagan times. The science of life consisted in solving
a practical equation between the measure of evil which it was
desirable to inflict upon others, and the amount of suffering
which it might be necessary to endure at their hands. Love of
mankind would have seemed folly to a society, the recognised
law of whose life was selfishness, and whose vices culminated in
» St. Matt, xviii. 3. r Pind. Nem. i. 82.
[lect.
offaith in the Divinity of Christ. 495
a mutual hatred between man and man, class and class, race
and race, thinly veiled by the hollow conventionalisms which
distinguished Pagan civilization from pure barbarism".
How did Jesus Christ reform this social corruption i He gave
the New Commandment. ' This is My commandment, that ye
love one another, as I have loved you*.' But was His love merely
the love of a holy man for those whose hearts were too dull and
earthly to love Him in return 1 Could such a human love as
this have availed to compass a moral revolution, and to change
the deepest instincts of mankind 1 Is it not a fact that Christians
have measured the love of Jesus Christ as man measures all love,
by observing the degree in which it involves the gift of self?
Love is ever the gift of self. It gives that which costs us some
thing, or it is not love. Its spirit may vary in the degree of
intensity, but it is ever the same. It is always and everywhere
the sacrifice of self. It is the gift of time, or of labour, or of
income, or of affection ; it is the surrender of reputation and of
honour ; it is the acceptance of sorrow and of pain for others.
The warmth of the spirit of love varies with the felt greatness
of the sacrifice which expresses it and which is its life. There
fore the love of the Divine Christ is infinite. ' He loved me,'
says an apostle, 'and gave Himself for me".' The 'Self which
He gave for man was none other than the Infinite God : the
reality of Christ's Godhead is the truth which can alone measure
the greatness of His love. The charities of His earthly life are
but so many sparks from the central column of flame, which
burns in the Self-devotion of the Eternal Son of God. The
agonies of His Passion are illuminated each and all with a moral
no less than a doctrinal meaning, by the momentous truth that
He Who is crucified between two thieves is nevertheless the
Lord of Glory. From this faith in the voluntary Self-immolation
of the Most Holy, a new power of love has streamed forth into
the soul of man. Of this love, before the Incarnation, man not
only had no experience ; his moral education would not have
trained him even to admire it. But the Infinite Being bowing
down to Self-chosen humiliation and agony, that, without violat
ing His essential attributes, He might win to Himself the heart
of His erring creatures, has provoked an answer of grateful love,
» Tit. iii. 3 : i5fiev "yip Tort koI fi/itis IwitiTOi, &wft$f~s, vXar&iuroi, Sov-
Xevovres iniBvixiais Kal T}Sovdts iroiictKais, £v tcaKiq real <p$6vtp SidyovTcs,
ffrvyTjrol, fittrovvTfs aW'fiKovs.
* St. John xv. 12. n Gal. ii. 20.
VIII ]
496 Charity, a product offaith in Christ's Divinity.
first towards Himself, and then for His sake towards His crea
tures. Thus 'with His Own right Hand, and with His holy
Arm, He hath gotten Himself the victory31' over the selfishness
as over the sins of man. ' We love Him because He first loved
usy.' If human life has been brightened by the thousand
courtesies of our Christian civilization ; if human pain has been
alleviated by the unnumbered activities of Christian charity ; if
the face of Christendom is beautified by institutions which cheer
the earthly existence of millions ; these results are due to
Christian faith in the Charity of the Eedeemer, which is infinite
because the Eedeemer is Divine. And thus the temples of
Christendom, visibly perpetuating the worship of Christ from
age to age, are not the only visible witnesses among us to His
Divine prerogatives. The hospital, in which the bed of anguish
is soothed by the hand of science under the guidance of love ;
the penitentiary, where the victims of a selfish passion are raised
to a new moral life by the care and delicacy of an unmercenary
tenderness ; the school, which gathers the ragged outcasts of our
great cities, rescuing them from the ignorance and vice of which
else they must be the prey ;—what is the fountain-head of these
blessed and practical results, but the truth of His Divinity, Who
has kindled man into charity by giving Himself for man ? The
moral results of Calvary are what they are, because Christ is
God. He Who stooped from heaven to the humiliations of the
Cross has opened in the heart of redeemed man a fountain of
love and compassion. No distinctions within the vast circle of
the human family can narrow or pervert its course ; nor can it
cease to flow while Christians believe, that Christ crucified for
men is the Only-begotten Son of God.
It is therefore an error to suppose that the doctrine of our
Lord's Divinity has impoverished the moral life of Christendom
' by removing Christ from the category of imitable beings.' For
on the one hand, the doctrine leaves His Humanity altogether
intact ; on the other, it enhances the force of His example as a
model of the graces of humility and love. Thus from age to age
this doctrine has in truth fertilized the moral soil of human life,
not less than it has guarded and illuminated intellectual truth.
How indeed could it be otherwise? 'If God spared not His
Own Son, but freely gave Him up for us all, how shall He not
with Him also freely give us all things V Who shall wonder if
wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption are
* Ps. xcviii. 2. y 1 St. John iv. 19.
[lect.
Recapitulation. 497
given with the gift of the Eternal Son ? Who shall wonder if hy
this gift, a keen, strong sense of the Personality and Life of God,
and withal a true estimate of man's true dignity, of his capacity,
through grace, for the highest forms of life, are guarded in the
sanctuary of human thought t Who shall gainsay it, if along
with this gift we inherit a body of revealed and certain truth,
reposing on the word of an Infallible Teacher ; if we are washed
in a stream of cleansing Blood, which flows from an atoning
fountain opened on Calvary for the sin and uncleanness of a
guilty world ; if we are sustained by sacraments which make us
really partakers of the Nature of our God ; if we are capable of
virtues which embellish and elevate humanity, yet which, but for
the strength and example of our Lord, might have seemed too
plainly unattainable ]
For the Divinity of God's Own Son, freely given for us
sinners to suffer and to die, is the very heart of our Christian
faith. It cannot be denied without tearing out the vitals of a
living Christianity. Its roots are struck far back into the pro
phecy, the typology, the ethics, of the Old Testament. It alone
supplies a satisfactory explanation of the moral attitude of Jesus
Christ towards His contemporaries. It is the true key to His
teaching, to His miracles, to the leading mysteries of His life, to
His power of controlling the issues of history. As such, it is
put forward by apostles who, differing in much besides, were
made one by this faith in His Divinity and in the truths which
are bound up with it. It enters into the world of speculative
discussion ; it is analysed, criticized, denounced, proscribed, be
trayed ; yet it emerges from the crucible wherein it has been
exposed to the action of every intellectual solvent that hostile
ingenuity could devise ; it has lost nothing from, it has added
nothing to, its original significance ; it has only been clothed in
a symbol which interprets it to new generations, and which lives
in the confessions of the grateful Church. Its later history is
explained when we remember the basis on which it really rests.
The question of Christ's Divinity is the question of the truth or
falsehood of Christianity. ' If Christ be not God,' it has been
truly said, 'He is not so great as Mohammed.' But Christ's
moral relation to Mohammed may safely be left to every un
sophisticated conscience ; and if the conscience owns in Him the
Moral Chief of humanity, it must take Him at His word when
He unveils before it His superhuman glory.
But the doctrine of Christ's Divinity does not merely bind us
to the historic past, and above all to the first records of Chris
VIII 1 ' Kk
498 Christ's Divinity the strength of His Church,
tianity ; it is at this hour the strength of the Christian Church.
There are forces abroad in the world of thought which, if they
could be viewed apart from all that counteracts them, might well
make a Christian fear for the future of humanity. It is not
merely that the Church is threatened with the loss of possessions
secured to her by the reverence of centuries, and of a place of
honour which may perhaps have guarded civilization more effec
tively than it can be shewn to have strengthened religion. The
Faith has once triumphed without these gifts of Providence ;
and, if God wills, she can again dispense with them. But never
since the first ages of the Gospel was fundamental Christian
truth denied and denounced so largely, and with such passionate
animosity, as is the case at this moment in each of the most
civilized nations of Europe. It may be that God has in store
for His Church greater trials to her faith than she has yet
experienced ; it may be that along with the revived scorn of the
old pagan spirit, the persecuting sword of pagan hatred will yet
be unsheathed. Be it so, if so He wills it. The holy city is
strong in knowing ' that God is in the midst of her, therefore
shall she not be removed ; God shall help her, and that right
early. The heathen make much ado, and the kingdoms are
moved ; but God hath shewed His Voice, and the earth shall
melt away.' When the waters of human opinion rage and swell,
and the mountains shake at the tempest of the same, our Divine
Lord is not unequal to the defence of His Name and His
Honour. If the sky seem dark and the winds contrary ; if ever
and anon the strongest intellectual and social currents of our
civilization mass themselves threateningly, as if to overwhelm
the holy bark as she rides upon the waves ; we know Who is
with her, unwearied and vigilant, though He should seem to
sleep. His presence forbids despondency ; His presence assures
us that a cause which has consistently conquered in its day of
apparent failure, cannot but calmly abide the issue. ' Although
the fig-tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines ;
the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no
meat ; the flocks shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be
no herd in the stalls : yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy
in the God of my salvation.'
Would that these anxieties might in God's good providence
work out a' remedy for the wounds of His Church ! Would
that, in presence of the common foe, and yet more by clinging
to the common faith, Christians could learn to understand each
other ! Surely it might seem that agreement in so stupendous
[lect.
and a rallying-point for disunited Christendom. 499
a belief as the Divinity of our Crucified Lord might avail to
overshadow, or rather to force on a reconciliation of the differ
ences which divide those who share it. Is it but the indulgence
of a fond dream to hope that a heartier, more meditative, more
practical grasp of the Divinity of Jesus will one day again unite
His children in the bonds of a restored unity t Is it altogether
chimerical to expect that Christians who believe Christ to be
truly God, will see more clearly what is involved in that faith,
and what is inconsistent with it ; that they will supply what is
wanting or will abandon what is untenable in their creed and
practice, so that before men and angels they may openly unite
in the adoring confession of their Divine Head? The pulse
quickens, and the eyes fill with tears, at the bare thought of
this vision of peace, at this distant but blessed prospect of a
reunited Christendom. What dark doubts would it not dispel !
What deep consolations would it not shed forth on millions of
souls ! What fascination would not the spectacle of concordant
prayer and harmonious action among the servants of Christ
exert over the hearts of sinners ! With what majestic energy
would the reinvigorated Church, 'terrible as an army with
banners,' address herself forthwith to the heartier promotion of
man's best interests, to the richer development of the Christian
life, to more energetic labours for the conversion of the world !
But we may not dwell, except in hope and prayer, upon the
secrets of Divine Providence. It may be our Lord's purpose to
shew to His servants of this generation only His work, and to
reserve for their children the vision of His glory. It must be
our duty, in view of His revealed Will, and with a simple faith
in His Wisdom and His Power, to pray our Lord ' that all they
that do confess God's Holy Name, may agree in the truth of
His Holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.'
But here we must close this attempt to reassert, against some
misapprehensions of modern thought, the great truth which
guards the honour of Christ, and which is the most precious
feature in the intellectual heritage of Christians. And for you,
dear brethren, who by your generous interest or by your warm
sympathies have so accompanied and sustained him, what can
the preacher more fittingly or more sincerely desire, than that
any clearer sight of the Divine Person of our glorious and living
Lord which may have been granted you, may be, by Him,
blessed to your present sanctification and to your endless peace 1
If you are intellectually persuaded that in confessing the true
Godhead of Jesus you have not followed a cunningly-devised
Till] Kk2
5°° Conclusion.
fable, or the crude imagination of a semi-barbarous and distant
age, then do not allow yourselves to rest content with this intel
lectual persuasion. A truth so sublime, so imperious, has other
work to do in you besides shaping into theoretic compactness a
certain district of your thought about the goodness of God and
the wants of man. The Divine Christ of the Gospel and the
Church is no mere actor, though He were the greatest, in the
great tragedy of human history; He belongs not exclusively
or especially to the past ; He is ' the Same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever.' He is at this moment all that He was
eighteen centuries ago, all that He has been to our fathers,
all that He will be to our children. He is the Divine and
Infallible Teacher, the Healer and Pardoner of sin, the Source
of all graces, the Conqueror of Satan and of death— now, as
of old, and as in years to come. Now as heretofore, He is
'able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God
by Him now, as on the day of His triumph over death,
' He opens the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers ;' now,
as in the first age of the Church, He it is ' that hath the key
of David, that openeth, and no man shutteth ; and shutteth,
and no man openeth2.' He is ever the Same ; but, as the
children of time, whether for good or evil, we move onwards in
perpetual change. The hours of life pass, they do not return ;
they pass, yet they are not forgotten ; ' pereunt et imputantur.'
But the present is our own ; we may resolve, if we will, to live
as men who live for the glory of an Incarnate God. Brethren,
you shall not repent it, if, when life's burdens press heavily, and
especially at that solemn hour when human help must fail, you
are able to lean with strong confidence on the arm of an
Almighty Saviour. May He in deed and truth be with you,
alike in your pilgrimage through this world, and when that
brief journey is drawing to its close ! May you, sustained by
His Presence and aid, so pass through the valley of the shadow
of death as to fear no evil, and to find, at the gate of the eternal
world, that all the yearnings of faith and hope are to be more
than satisfied by the vision of the Divine ' King in His
Beauty !'
z Rev. iii. 7.
[LECT. YIIl]
NOTES.
NOTE A, on Lectube L
The works upon the Life of our Lord alluded to in the text are
the following.
I. Das LebenJesu, von Dr. F. D. Strauss. 1835. This work
passed through several editions, and in 1864 was followed
up by Das Leben Jesu, fur das Deutsche Volk bearbeitet.
Leipsig, Brockhaus.
Strauss' argument is chiefly concerned with the differences
between the Evangelists, and with the miraculous features of
their narratives. He regards the miracles as ' myths,' that is to
say, as pure fictions. His position is, that the speculative ideas
about Jesus which were circulating in the first century were
dressed up in a traditional form, the substance of which was
derived from the Messianic figures of the Old Testament. This
violent supposition was really dictated by Strauss' philosophy.
Denying the possible existence of miracle, of the supernatural, of
the invisible world, and even the existence of a personal living
God, Strauss undertakes to explain the Gospel-history as the
natural development of germs previously latent in the world of
human life and thought. Upon the ground that nothing is
absolute, that all is relative, Strauss will not allow that any one
man can absolutely have realized the 'idea' of humanity. The
sanctity of Jesus was only relative ; and, speaking historically,
Jesus fell far below the absolute Idea to which the thought of the
Apostolical age endeavoured to elevate Him by the ' mythical'
additions to his ' Life.' Thus Strauss' criticism is in reality the
application of Hegel's doctrine of 'absolute idealism' to the
Gospel narratives. ' It is,' observes Dr. Mill, ' far more from a
502 Note A. On '■Lives' of Our Lord.
a ' Ecce Homo,' by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. Strahan & Co.
London, 1868. [Reprinted from 'Good Words.']
5io Note A. On '■Lives' of Our Lord.
NOTE E, on Lecture V.
' The Presbyter John' and the Apostle.
Who was the author of the Second and Third Epistles attri
buted to St. John the Evangelist in the present Canon of the
New Testament ?
I. The existence of a 'Presbyter John,' a contemporary of the
Apostle, depends on the following evidence :—
(i.) Papias in Eus. iii. 39 names him with Aristion separately
from St. John, as a disciple of the Lord. Eusebius adds
that this confirms the report of (a) two Johns in Asia who
had been in close relations with our Lord, (/3) two tombs
at Ephesus both bearing the name of John.
(ii.) Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eus. vii. 25, ascribes the
authorship of the Apocalypse to 'the Presbyter John,'
as Eusebius himself was inclined to do. Dionysius repeats
the story of the two tombs.
(iii.) The 'Apostolical Constitutions' (vii. 47) says that a
second John was made Bishop of Ephesus by the Apostle
St. John.
(iv.) St. Jerome (Catal. Script, c. 9 and 18) makes a state
ment to the same effect : he says that John the Presbyter's
Note E. The Presbyter John and the Apostle. 519
tomb is still shewn at Ephesus, although some maintained
that both tombs were memorials of St John the Evan
gelist.
Dr. Dollinger admits that John Presbyter lived as a contem
porary of the Evangelist, and that his grave could be seen at
Ephesus next to St. John's. (First Age of the Church, p. 113,
Eng. trans., 2nd edit.)
II. But this admission would not necessarily involve the
further admission that the Presbyter John was the author of
the Second and Third Epistles ascribed to the Apostle. All
that can be advanced in favour of the Presbyter's authorship is
stated by Ebrard (Einleitung) ; the ordinary belief being de
fended by Lticke, Huther, Wordsworth, and Alford. Among
reasons for it are the following :—
i. Tlie argument from style. The differences upon which
Ebrard lays such stress may fairly be accounted for by the
distinct character and object of the two Epistles ; while their
general type of language and thought is unmistakeably Johan-
nean. Bretschneider denied that the Apostle had written any
one of the three Epistles. Yet he had no doubt of the fact
that all three had been written by a single author.
ii. Church-tradition.
(a) The great authority, in this matter especially, of St. Ire-
nseus ; Hser. i. 16. 3 ; iii. 16. 8. (See Alford.) Neither
St. Irenseus nor Polycrates had ever heard, it would ap
pear, of the Presbyter John, which shews at least that
he cannot have been an eminent person in the Church.
(p) That of Clement and Dionysius of Alexandria (see
Alford) j Aurelius, quoted by St. Cyprian in Cone.
Carth. ; St. Jerome, cf. Ep. 2 ad Paulinum, Ep. ad
Evagrium.
(7) On the other hand, Origen was doubtful about the
authorship as about many other things. (Eus. vi. 25.)
The two Epistles are not even mentioned by Tertullian
or Theodoret. They were rejected, together with the
other Catholic Epistles, by Theodore of Mopsuestia.
(8) The late reception of the two Epistles into the canon
of so many Churches may be accounted for, according
to Ebrard, by (1) their private character; (2) the fact
520 Note F. The Worship of Jesus Christ
that one was addressed to a woman ; (3) the amount
of matter in them common to the first Epistle (?). The
verdict of the Muratorian Fragm. is doubtful. The
Peschito probably did not contain either. Eusebius
reckons them among the Antilegomena ; yet his own
opinion appears in Deni. Ev. iii. 5. (See Alford.)
iii. Nothing against the apostolic authorship can be inferred
from the title 6 irpeaftirepos, St. Paul calls himself 6 npeo-fivTris
(Philem. 9), and St. Peter 6 a-vimpea-^irepos (1 Pet. v. 1).
Probably ' the Presbyter ' John did not assume the title until
after the death of the Apostle. St John may have used it
in his private correspondence either to hint at his age, or as
a formal title the force of which was at once recognized and
admitted. Surely the Presbyter would have added to 6 irpeo--
/Surfpor, his name 'Iodroijr. An Apostle could afford to omit
his name. The authority too, of which the writer of the third
Epistle is conscious in his reference to Diotrephes, seems incon
sistent with the supposition of a non-apostolical authorship.
E. G.
Ebionitism, i. 15 ; v. 221, 247. Galatians, Epistle to, vi. 327, 328,
'Ecce Homo,' i. 15 ; Note A ; on 349-
Christ's foundation of a Society, 'Generation, Eternal,' of the Son,
iii. 110 ; on His miracles, iv. 161 ; iv. 182 ; vii. 422, 423.
on His humility, 195 ; on His Genesis, ii. 48.
condescension, vi. 310. Gesenius, ii. 61.
Ecclesiasticus, date of, ii. 64. Gibbon, his 'five causes,' iii. 135;
'El,' ii. 87. his sneer at ' the iota,' vii. 435.
Elizabeth, her greeting of Mary, v. Gladstone, on 'Ecce Homo,'
248. Note A.
Ellicott, Bishop, on passages in ' Gloria in excelsis,' the, vii. 386.
St. Paul, vi. 312, 315, notes ; on 'Glory,' in St. John's Gospel, v.
human limitations in Christ, viii. 230.
463, note. Gnosticism, ii. 69 ; v. 220, 221, 239 ;
■ Elohim,' ii. 48 ; Note B. vi. 281, note, 308, 309.
Emanatists, vii. 430. God, the true idea of, i. 30 ; viii.
' Emmanuel,' ii. 88 ; v. 247. 448 ; not secured by Deism, 444
Enoch, Book of, i. 7 ; vi. 302. sq. ; Pantheistic misuse of the
Enthusiasm, Christ not deified by, Name, i. 29; viii. 451, note.
v. 267. Goethe, on originality, iii. 106 ; his
Ephesians, Epistle to, vi. 281, note, admiration of the heathen mind,
ii. 76.
Ephesus, Council of, v. 258. Grace, vi. 233.
Eucharist, the Holy, iv. 157 ; v. 253 ; Gregory of Nazianzen, St., on A-
vi. 330; vii. 389; viii. 481. rianism, vii. 437, note; on 'ig
Eulogius, against Agnoetae, viii. norance,' viii. 461.
462. Gregory of Nyssa, St., on Arianism,
Eutychianism, v. 261 ; viii. 462. vii. 437, note, 438.
Evangelists, fundamentally at one Guizot, on originality of Christ's
in their representations of Christ, 'plan,' iii. 112.
v. 244 sq.
Ewald, his view of Christ, i. 15, 16 ;
Note A ; on St. John's Gospel, v. Hebrews, Epistle to, vi. 281, note,
218, 268. 320.
Ezekiel, sense of ' Son of Man ' in, Hegel, his definition of religion, i. 3;
i. 8. his view of Christ, 13,
Hengstenberg, ii. 86.
Faith, grace of, as described by Heracleon, v. 216.
St. Paul, vi. 340 sq. Herder, on St. John's Gospel, v.
Faith, the, once delivered, vii. 208.
427 sq. Heresy, how viewed by St. John,
' Fountain of Deity,' a title of God v. 242 ; by St. Paul, vi. 279, 336.
the Father, iv. 181, 200 ; vii. 422. Hilary, St., on Homoousion, vii.
Felix, on originality, iii. 106. 431, note.
Feuerbach, his view of Christ, i. 13 ; Hippolytus, St.,'Philosophumena' of,
his naturalistic theory of religion, v. 216 ; on Christ's Divinity, vii.
v. 267. 41 5; inaccurate language of, 418.
Fichte, his definition of religion, i. Historical aestheticism, its objec
3 ; his view of Christ, 13, tion to dogma, i. 34 ; ' historical
Firmilian, vii. 431. spirit,' the, iv. 151.
Freewill in man, v. 265. ' Homoiousion,' the, vii. 435,
INDEX. 543
' Homoousion,' history of the term, richness, and its unity, ii. 83 sq. ;
i. 32 ; vii. 430 ; see Lect. VII. ; his self-abasement, iv. 164.
how criticised by moderns, 358 ; Israel, Messianic hopes of, ii. 74 sq. ;
explains early Church's worship a Theocracy, iii. 99.
of Christ, 359 sq. ; summarizes
her Christology, 405 sq. ; a ' de J.
velopment' only by explanation, Jackson, Dr., on Hypostatic Union,
426 sq. ; why rejected by Council v. 258, 259, notes.
of Antioch, 431. Jacobi, his view of Christ, i. 1 3.
Hooker, on ' being in Christ,' vi. James, St., Epistle of, vi. 278, 280,
347 ; on human limitations in 282 sq.
Christ, viii. 466 ; on Hypostatic Jehovah, name of, ii. 88.
Union, 476. Jeremiah, prophecy of, ii. 84, 88,
Hope, its necessity and uses, ii. 72 J 99- _
Israel sustained by, 75. Jerome, St., on Christian society,
'Humanity,' era of, hi. 130; idea iii. 125, note ; on Ante-nicenes,
of, protected by the Incarnation, vii. 421.
™. 45'» 494- Jerusalem, council of, vi. 278, 287.
Humanitarianism, i. 15, 25; vi. 102, Jestjs, Name of, ii. 88 ; v. 247, notes.
323» 337 ; vii. 425; ™i. 473. Jews, their history a witness to
Humanity of our Lord, see ' Christ.' Christ, iii. 97 ; hostility of, to
Humility, Christ's Incarnation the Christianity, 137, 138.
great motive to, viii. 491 sq. Job, 'Wisdom' referred to in, ii.
Hymns, fragments of, in the Epi 59-
stles, vi. 327, 328; value of, as John Baptist, St., iii. m.
expressing Christian doctrine, vii. John Damascene, St., on Hypostatic
385 sq. Union, v. 258, 259, notes; on
'Hypostasis,' history of the term, Two Energies, v. 264, note.
i- 33- John the Evangelist, St., see Lect.
'Hypostatic Union/ i. 17, 23, note, V.; life and character of, 240 sq.,
257 S(l- ; viii- 4^4> 476- 269, 273 sq. ; compared with St.
Paul, vi. 282, 350 ; Gospel of, its
I. authenticity, v. 208 sq. ; its three
purposes, 219 sq. ; internal diffi
Ignatius, St., alludes to St. John, culties urged against it, 224,
v. 214 ; on worship of Christ, vii. note ; its relation to the other
379 ; on His Divinity, 41 1. Gospels, 244 sq. ; Epistles of,
'Ignorance' and ' error,' not iden 238 sq. ; vii. 374 ; Revelation of,
tical, viii. 468. see ' Apocalypse.'
•Image of God,' a title of Christ, John Presbyter, Note E.
vi. 317. Jowett, Prof., on Philo, ii. 67, 68,
Incarnation, the, illustrated by mys notes.
teries in our present being, v. ' Joyful Light,' hymn, vii. 387.
260 ; how related to Creation, Judaizers, vi. 281, 332, 348, 349.
265 ; secures belief in a living Jude, St., Christology of, vi, 301,
God, viii. 447 ; protects dignity 302.
of man, 451. See 'Christ.' Justification, i. 41 ; vi. 342.
' Inferential Theology,' viii. 440 sq.; Justin Martyr, St. , on ' the Angel
Inspiration, ii. 45 sq. ; v. 219. of the Lord,' ii. 55 ; his testimony
Irenseus, St., i. 8 ; on the Four to St. John's Gospel, v. 214; on
Gospels, v. 210; on Christ's Di worship of Christ, vii. 381 ; on
vinity, vii. 4 1 3 ; on His human Christ's Divinity, 41 2 ; difficulties
'ignorance,' 459. in his language, 418 sq.
Isaiah, prophecy of, its Messianic Juvenal, iii. 140 ; viii. 4S8.
544 INDEX.
> »l .. . : m 1 s . 4
• ■ :s ;1 1
I. ... *■ •' • «< 1. J; it .itd^.i,?.,^' 4
..- 1 / fi , ", ..1 ttf:-.
'-•l V,...:..